Beyond the Data: Establishing Relationships,Honoring Lived Experience,and Highlighting Qualitative Community Research With Military-Connected Families as an Exemplar

Abstract

Qualitative research inquiry that centers vulnerable communities requires more than methodological rigor—it necessitates deep, authentic engagement with the populations involved. This paper explores strategies qualitative researchers can use to foster meaningful, ethical, and transparent relationships with participants and community partners throughout the research process. Illustrated through applied vignettes from our experience carrying out focus group research with military-connected teens and families, we share strategies for conducting community research through intentional preparation, thoughtful recruitment, innovative data collection, reflexive analyses, and sustained follow-up efforts that contribute to community trust and the co-production of knowledge. We highlight the importance of meeting communities where they are, taking time to listen and learn, and ensuring research is not merely extractive but reciprocal. By prioritizing approaches that center the lived experiences and perspectives of members of vulnerable communities, we argue that researchers are better equipped to capture the complex realities of vulnerable populations while also empowering communities through the research process. The ideas presented align with ongoing discourse on best practices in community-based qualitative methods and expand into practical recommendations for both emerging and established scholars in behavioral, social, and health science disciplines. This work contributes to the growing body of literature on ethical, engaged research methodologies by synthesizing strategies that have worked for us at various stages before, during, and after the traditional research process and demonstrating how scholars can move beyond transactional exchanges to engage in transformative research. Ultimately, we hope implementation of these approaches leads to more collaborative, sustainable partnerships that enhance both research outcomes and community health and well-being.

As global issues such as healthcare accessibility, political unrest, discrimination, and economic insecurity intensify, all of us, but especially those belonging to vulnerable communities, must consider the challenges and opportunities that can be leveraged to not just survive but also thrive in current circumstances. Researchers are uniquely positioned to capture the complexities of life for members of vulnerable communities navigating the realities of modern society, while also listening to, learning from, and empowering those most affected through authentic engagement and collaboration (Mertens, 2021; Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau, 2018). In this work, we outline critical components of carrying out effective community research with vulnerable populations that centers the relational aspect of participant-researcher partnerships—before, during, and after the steps involved in traditional research processes. In each section, we describe instances from our own research with military-connected families as illustrations. Therefore, the current paper is not intended to be empirical but rather to provide an instructive basis to consider when conducting qualitative research with vulnerable populations.

Throughout this article, we define vulnerable communities as groups that are at increased risk for experiencing adverse treatment or outcomes due to life circumstances or characteristics, acknowledging the deeply contextual and often fluid nature of vulnerability and marginalization (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015; Lake et al., 2018; Mechanic & Tanner, 2007). In relation to research, these groups are more likely to be misunderstood, tokenized, superficially considered, or thought of as one-dimensional without adequate examination of the full context and nuance of their situation or experience; these oversights can often be attributed to unexamined preconceived notions and methodological gaps in recruitment strategies and data collection procedures (Flaskerud & Winslow, 1998; Gallegos et al., 2023). Conducting research with vulnerable communities allows researchers to better understand the human experience from perspectives that are not often centered in society and culture broadly. Accurately capturing the experiences, strengths, barriers, and needs of vulnerable communities provides opportunities for enhancing multi-faceted health outcomes and well-being (e.g., psychological, social, cognitive, educational) by providing relevant data to inform tailored supports and services (Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau, 2018; Perez & Treadwell, 2009).

Qualitative inquiry is an ideal methodology for collecting information in a way that honors the experiences of populations we—as researchers—are purporting to partner with (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In particular, community research (i.e., work in which a researcher integrates themselves and works in partnership with the population they are studying; Mertens, 2021) that emphasizes the rich embeddedness of high-quality qualitative inquiry provides opportunities to enhance experiences and outcomes for those we seek to come alongside and support. The research aims and community needs specific to the population of interest should guide the methods of any given study. Our suggestions in this article can apply to many qualitative methods but lend themselves best to methods that require deep relationships between researcher and participants like participatory action research, phenomenology, case study, and narrative inquiry (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This work requires an increased sensitivity and intentionality that, when done well, can elevate previously unheard voices and prioritize lived experiences in a way that allows us to learn from communities themselves about what they value and need.

Conducting research with vulnerable communities also allows researchers to prioritize the lived experiences of participants. This means that work in these contexts requires that researchers move beyond solely objective methods to deeply understand their participants and the challenges they face. Building deep and meaningful relationships within vulnerable communities is a key element to capturing their lived experiences in authentic ways (Boutros et al., 2025; Glesne, 2016). Doing this work can be challenging because it requires ongoing relationship building between the research team and the community over time (Mertens, 2021). This investment of time is critical because it helps the researcher to uncover the nuances of the community known to its members while also establishing trust and rapport—both of which result in more robust scientific contributions to research, practice, and policy (Glesne, 2016; Morse, 2015).

Community research employing qualitative methods is uniquely suited to address these values, given the deep embeddedness it requires. Conducting this work well with vulnerable communities requires additional considerations and intentional approaches due to the opportunities and challenges inherent in working with these populations (Perez & Treadwell, 2009). For example, vulnerable populations may experience marginalization in society and institutions (Shivayogi, 2013), fear of retaliation/alienation from those in power (Gordon, 2020), historical and intergenerational traumas (Wilson & Neville, 2009), and mistrust in research institutions that justifiably stanch their interest in participating in research endeavors (Gordon, 2020). At the same time, these groups often exhibit remarkable resilience, adaptability, and cultural capital (Wilson & Neville, 2009) that is often not captured in research that employs methods aimed at addressing slices of their experience using few sources.

This paper explores how specific elements and strategies of community research can help to capture the experiences of vulnerable populations in authentic and meaningful ways by emphasizing the arc of research engagement, spanning work that occurs before meeting the community to efforts that are sustained long after the study has been conducted. Drawing on existing standards and techniques we adapted based on best practices, we outline targeted suggestions and considerations before, during, and after the study for researchers planning to conduct research with vulnerable communities from lessons learned in our own research. Throughout the sections that follow, we provide examples from a study we conducted with military-connected families. By including these vignettes, we offer concrete examples of how these practices can look in work with real participants. However, they are in no way exhaustive and are included purely as a starting point for considering how you can begin or continue engaging in community research with vulnerable communities.

Conducting Community Research: Lessons and Examples

The study we draw upon for examples throughout this paper utilized focus groups to understand the impact of military lifestyle demands on the school experiences of military-connected teens in their own words and from the perspectives of their parents and teachers (McKown, 2023). It is important to highlight the decision to conduct this work with military-connected teens, their parents, and their teachers. While military personnel and their families may not be the first group to come to mind when considering vulnerable communities, there are many facets of the military lifestyle that can lead to difficult circumstances.

Military-connected families and individuals can be considered as part of a vulnerable community as a result of multiple military lifestyle demands that keep their lives in near-constant transition. Service members and their families experience frequent residential mobility with the average service member being restationed every two to three years (Clever & Segal, 2013). This residential mobility puts military members and their families at risk of adverse experiences related to housing (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2023), medical care (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2020; RAND, 2021), educational opportunities (Blue Star Families, 2021; Cramm et al., 2019), and overall well-being. Additionally, military-connected families experience frequent service-related separations that take service members away from home for periods of days to years. These separations result in significant shifts in family functioning and well-being that have a demonstrated impact on both the home caregiver and children and teens in the home (DeVoe & Ross, 2012; Moeller et al., 2015).

Military-connected families can be stationed all over the world and live in nearly every city and town in the United States; they can be difficult to identify and even more challenging to support because of their relative anonymity. Numerous military and veteran service organizations (MSO/VSO, e.g., Military Child Education Coalition, BLOOM: Empowering the Military Teen, Military Family Advisory Network, Blue Star Families) and government groups like the Department of Defense and Government Accountability Office have identified the specialized needs of military-connected children and families and have worked for years to conduct research and advocate for supports. Military-connected teens have been found to have increased rates of thoughts of self harm and suicide ideation compared to the national average, indicating a need for further research into their experiences and needs (National Military Family Association, 2023). Deeply understanding the experiences of military-connected teens is a crucial piece to supporting military families and communities in an effort to retain skilled service members and support mission readiness.

We consider vulnerable communities in this work to be groups that are at increased risk of experiencing adverse treatment or outcomes due to life circumstances or characteristics (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015; Lake et al., 2018; Mechanic & Tanner, 2007). Vulnerability often manifests differently for different groups and even for individuals within the same groups. It is important to be mindful of the unseen and often unacknowledged vulnerabilities of groups or individuals who appear to be integrated within society. Framed another way, vulnerability exists on a spectrum, and it is critical that researchers are cognizant of and open minded about the risks communities face when participating in research (Aldridge, 2014; Gordon, 2020; Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau, 2018). In some cases, military-connected individuals are hesitant about participating in research because it could disrupt their standing within their community or interfere with their service member’s career if they are identified as being overly harsh or critical (Ender, 2023). Understanding risks like these prepares researchers to be sensitive to the needs of participants belonging to vulnerable communities as they undertake research (Aldridge, 2014).

The study we use throughout this article as an illustration included seven military-connected teens, seven parents, and two teachers. Participants first completed dyadic or triadic focus groups that included a teen and their parent; in two cases, a teacher joined the discussion as well, based on the teen and parent’s comfort with including them. Then, participants engaged in role-based focus groups (i.e., teens and parents participated separately) where they discussed with their peers. We analyzed transcripts using both an exploratory analytic approach and then a directed content analysis looking for evidence of Lerner’s (2009) 5 Cs of Positive Youth Development (competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring). Our analyses yielded six themes that represented both assets of individuals and of their contexts: advocacy, sense of urgency, positive outlook and informed perspectives, influence of non-parental adults, leveraging the military-connected community, and the critical role of extra-curriculars. McKown (2023) contains additional details related to the methods, findings, and implications of this study.

Completing this study and compiling its results was a collaborative effort. I (Author 1: GM) have spent my career both in K-12 education and as a scholar learning about the experiences of military-connected students and their families. I have used both quantitative and qualitative methods to study this community, and felt the design of this study was best suited to its goals. I (Author 2: AS) have over a decade of experience with qualitative research and an awareness of issues facing military-connected families through ongoing collaborations with Author 1. While Author 1 led the design and implementation of the study’s data collection, we worked in tandem on analyses to derive meaning from the data and address the research questions.

Conceptualization and Design

Understanding the Context

Ahead of planning community research, it is important to deeply understand the context both within research and practice. From a research perspective, this requires a thorough review of the literature to understand what is known about the community and what kinds of conceptual work and studies have already been done. Starting here provides helpful insight into how the community may currently be understood as well as limitations and potential gaps in the research.

Understanding the context also requires stepping outside from the pages of a journal article or a computer screen through intentional interaction and rapport building with practitioners and organizations who work with or among the community of interest, ideally those that have arisen from grassroots efforts. Service organizations like advocacy groups and nonprofits are helpful starting points in identifying issues of significance to the community as well as how change is made within and on behalf of the community. Connecting with community members and organizations, especially key gatekeepers, is often an effective way to build trust and rapport (Boutros et al., 2025; Tamlyn et al., 2025). Exploring the mission and services of these organizations can be helpful in understanding the needs of the community, and partnering with them can be even more helpful in designing and developing impactful research.

Meeting Communities Where They Are

Conducting successful community research starts well before the actual study begins by engaging with communities in their spaces in a way that is professional but friendly. This requires a willingness to spend time with the community of interest with genuine curiosity and compassion. Additionally, meeting communities where they are means identifying where these communities come together and to what extent community members are open to outside support and intervention. Authentic attempts to meet communities where they are begin with curiosity, respect for the group, and time invested educating yourself about their norms, beliefs, and values. Doing this well requires tact and nuance that demonstrates respect for the community and a desire to add value where they need and want it most.

Authentically Embedding Oneself

Ahead of any research activities, it is critical that researchers authentically embed themselves in the community. This requires researchers to forge relationships with community members, representing themselves as researchers but also as community partners with the goal of building trust, observing, learning, listening, and—when invited—participating (McGinity & Salokangas, 2014). Embedding yourself within the community can take many forms but transparency and authenticity are key. This may include service to organizations working closely with the community where you share your skills or offer consultation. It may also look like collaborating with peers who already support the space to build credibility and sensitivity to the community’s needs. Most importantly, authentically embedding yourself means sharing your intentions to understand and support the community without a predetermined personal agenda, allowing what they share with you to inform your work over time. For example, in the case of the first author’s line of research with military-connected populations, authentically embedding oneself has taken the form of frequent attendance at relevant community events, both virtually and in-person, and maintaining connections with military-connected networks, including past participants through regular contact and check-ins.

Application: Learning the Landscape and Building Trust

In our study, we made a significant investment in getting to know our community ahead of planning or designing any research. Both researchers in this study were outsiders to this community, meaning that neither of us are military-connected. This means that we had to take explicit steps to build awareness and trust well in advance of conducting research. To better understand the context, we spent several years deeply reviewing both academic and practitioner-level publications related to military-connectedness and the assets and constraints of the military lifestyle. We attended webinars, listened to podcasts, and explored other grey literature sources to build our understanding of existing work in the space as well as identify gaps and needs for further research. We also invested time networking with other colleagues and leaders conducting research and offering support services within the military community to understand the impetus for and reality of ongoing initiatives.

Meeting the community where they were meant spending time with military spouses and families outside of a research setting. I (Author 1) spent time attending virtual and in-person events hosted to support military-connected families and teachers who supported them. I also built relationships with national non-profits that supported military-connected communities, learning from numerous military spouses and families along the way. Building these relationships over time helped educate me about the issues military-connected communities face while also developing a deep understanding of the facets of their lives that research had failed to capture so far. Participants from our exemplar study were recruited out of many of these efforts. Most were recruited from connections in online forums and social networks (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook groups) that I (Author 1) had been active in for years, and others were recruited via snowball sampling. Meeting communities where they were in our study meant investing time in understanding military-connected experiences from multiple perspectives and in several contexts well ahead of planning and conducting our study.

In our study, embedding ourselves within the military-connected community started long before any studies took place. I (Author 1) spent time as a teacher in a military-connected community, where my initial interest in supporting these students was piqued, and went on to work full-time at or provide consultation to leading non-profit organizations serving military-connected children. Additionally, I spent time building relationships with military spouses through this work, asking them about their experiences and what they wished researchers could explore and capture. While embedding yourself in the community will often not include formal employment, this example highlights how we, as researchers, can use our skills to build relationships with and support communities of interest in substantive ways. These experiences support the authentic, mutually beneficial relationships needed to understand the context and conduct research with vulnerable communities.

Recruitment

Deciding where and how you will identify and engage participants is a critical step in any research endeavor. The approaches we describe here harken back to our earlier point about meeting people where they are. Understanding the context in which a target group operates allows you to find individuals, families, and communities that might be interested in supporting your research by offering their insights. In addition to drawing upon the networks established in the phase prior to beginning a study to discern what might be viable recruitment locations, we encourage researchers to think creatively. Online community spaces, through Facebook, Reddit, and other social media sites, can be promising to tap into as a source of recruitment. However, it is important to be mindful of the norms of the space and tread cautiously before intruding.

By establishing rapport and earning trust with existing participants and partner organizations, you also have the opportunity to request and follow new leads that might be shared. In addition to meeting communities where they are, let the engaged members of communities tell you where to go. This snowball sampling approach, whereby participants share the names and contact information of others in their circles who might be interested in participating (Glesne, 2016), can be especially effective; many individuals who might otherwise be hesitant to speak with a researcher feel reassured when knowing a trusted member of their community referred them to you (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015).

In the spirit of establishing a trusting relationship before engaging in the work, we are strong advocates for a “pre-meeting” with participants ahead of data collection activities (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations). This allows researchers the opportunity to not only build a foundation demonstrating prioritization of the participant and their experience in the study, but also to explain the research process; talk through informed consent documents; discuss procedures for ensuring anonymity, protecting personally identifiable information, and/or maintaining confidentiality; and answer any questions participants might have. For members of vulnerable communities that have been historically excluded from research and/or mistreated by the research establishment, taking the time to ensure their comfort and set expectations for their engagement in research is paramount to both recruitment and retention (Mertens, 2021; Romsland et al., 2019).

Application: Leveraging Online Spaces and Connecting Before Collecting Data

Our study relied heavily on both social media and social networks for the recruitment of participants. I (Author 1) developed a graphic that I shared widely on my social media pages (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn). I also asked several military-connected colleagues and friends if they would post the graphic and survey interest link on their pages and in social media groups they belonged to with other military spouses and parents. Eventually, study participants even recommended their friends and neighbors to participate.

Interested participants completed a screening form to determine their eligibility and then I hosted a pre-interview session with each qualifying parent. In this session, I provided detail about the goals and structure of the study and collected informed consent and assent from the parent for themselves and their child, respectively. This offered participants an opportunity to learn more about the study before fully committing to participation and allowed them a space to ask questions. Another primary function of these sessions was to start to establish a relationship with study participants and to build trust with them by providing detailed information about how their identity and responses would be protected throughout the study. While this may seem like an unnecessary step at first glance, we believe that taking the time to hold these sessions ahead of data collection helped participants to feel safer and more comfortable sharing their personal experiences within the study as a whole.

Data Collection

Data collection in qualitative work requires researchers to be thoughtful about where, when, and how they ask participants to share about their experiences. This means being intentional about study design, including both the structure of the data collection as well as the approach taken to address sensitive topics (Aguinis et al., 2021). The most appropriate approach will be dictated by the study aims as well as contextual factors, such as time, place, and community. Researchers should be careful when considering how they might ask participants to share their experiences, including modalities like written responses, individual interviews, and focus groups, to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of their responses can be reasonably maintained (Gordon, 2020). Explaining the participation risks should also be carefully outlined to participants when they are providing their informed consent to be sure they understand how their anonymity will be protected and any risks that may arise as a result of participation. Participants should also be given the opportunity to review their responses after data collection takes place to be sure that their statements are a true reflection of their position or experience (Glesne, 2016). Careful planning and procedures around data collection protect both the participants and the quality of the research by prioritizing participant comfort and minimizing risk.

Researchers might also consider ways to enhance the quality of the data they are collecting (Glesne, 2016). Adding variety to the data types, styles, and frequency are ways to support richer findings that provide a more comprehensive picture of the experiences of vulnerable communities. For example, researchers might consider including interviews, focus groups, observations, narratives, and/or photovoice (as only a handful of many possible options) as data sources in one study; this provides participants more opportunities to engage in their preferred format (e.g., in cases where speaking about experiences may be harder than writing about them, or in instances where participants may have trouble typing and would rather share verbally). Another opportunity for adding more depth to data collection would be employing the same method in varying ways, such as having focus groups with different compositions (as our sample study did), asking participants to write narratives from multiple perspectives (i.e., considering an experience from the views of others, objects in their lives, or their own views at various time points/ages; Adler et al., 2019). Adding variety could also take the form of incorporating multiple time points into data collection. For example, three 30-min interviews might provide more insight than one 90-min interview, as participants have time to continue reflecting on their views and responses in between rounds of data collection.

Application: Ensuring Comfort, Adding Variety, and Verifying Responses

In our study, prioritizing participant comfort during data collection was at the center of the study’s design. After the pre-meeting with eligible potential participants, I (Author 1 conducted the first round of focus groups. These focus groups included a teen, parent, and teacher, if the parent-teen dyad felt comfortable including one. While the original design of the study was for all initial focus groups to include a teacher, early conversations in the pre-meeting phase indicated that because of their frequent residential mobility and other military lifestyle constraints, most participant families did not feel like they had a close enough relationship with any of their teen’s current or recent teachers to include them in the study. We made a decision to honor this participant sentiment and make including a teacher in the initial focus groups optional, with two out of the seven participating families choosing to include a teacher. These focus groups are referred to as dyadic/triadic focus groups in the initial manuscript. The focus groups were conducted virtually, which enhanced accessibility and allowed more families to participate. Participants in our study were located in numerous states within the United States, and two families were stationed abroad during data collection. We found that the virtual format was not an issue for participants, and the online modality for focus group discussions was consistent across all groups. Many participants described enjoying the focus groups, which allowed them to reflect on their experience.

Following the dyadic/triadic focus groups, we moved on to role-based focus groups. In these sessions, participants met to answer questions and share experiences with all other study participants in the same role as them (i.e., parent focus group and teen focus group). There was no teacher focus group due to the low number of teacher participants and availability challenges for those who did participate. We started these role-based focus groups with a reminder about confidentiality and informed consent. In this reminder, we highlighted that information shared in the focus group should not be discussed outside of the group and encouraged all participants to use their initials or first names only in the Zoom session. Participants in these sessions shared openly about their (for teens) and their teen’s (for parents) school experiences, especially when highlighting some of their greatest challenges. Their willingness to be vulnerable and even to cry in these role-based groups highlights the power of prioritizing participant comfort in data collection in qualitative research in similar communities.

During data collection, I (Author 1) was careful to verbally summarize participant sentiments and take careful notes during sessions to check for accuracy. Because we knew the sessions would be relatively long (average length: 72 minutes), we conducted member checking as we finished each focus group protocol item to offer participants the opportunity to adjust their responses or add more information as needed. Together, these steps helped us to ensure that participants felt comfortable sharing about their sometimes difficult and deeply personal experiences in a way that was both supportive and mindful of confidentiality.

Analysis

As highlighted above, having an open mind is an invaluable skill when conducting community research with vulnerable populations, as the information we engage with in academic texts and even other forms of media may not be telling us the whole (or even an accurate) story of the experiences and perspectives of our participants (Aldridge, 2014). Holding this view, analytic approaches that emphasize phenomenological, ethnographic, and grounded theory lenses to make sense of the data often pair well with community research given their focus on understanding complexities of experiences conveyed by participants through interpretivism (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau, 2018). Data-driven, inductive processes, such as those afforded by an eclectic blend of open or initial, in vivo, emotion, or values coding (Clarke & Braun, 2017; Saldaña, 2021; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), allow for the participants’ own words—transformed into data points—to tell the story. Bracketing efforts like reflexive journaling and analytic memos are also critical in this phase to help researchers identify their preconceived notions or biases that may influence their analyses (Tufford & Newman, 2012).

Where appropriate, employing member checking, or sharing interpretations of the data with participants for verification and feedback, not only promotes the trustworthiness and validation of the findings but also strengthens the trusting and collaborative relationship between researchers and participants (Glesne, 2016; Pyo et al., 2023). We encourage researchers to use discretion and reference best practices outlined in the literature when choosing whether to include member checking as part of their analytic approach, which may be best suited when utilizing a methodological framework that emphasizes phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, or narrative inquiry, as examples. Both of these strategies demonstrate the rich potential results of researchers “letting go of the reins” and trusting participants, while not forfeiting scientific rigor.

Application: Grounding in Past Work While Keeping an Open Mind

In our study, we used several techniques to interpret participant experiences as we analyzed the data. In our pre-coding phase, we compiled a list of provisional codes that we expected to see in our analysis based on existing research and memos or notes from the focus groups, and we worked to revise and adapt these codes as we conducted further analyses through an emergent coding process (Dey, 1993; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2021). This phase was critical because it allowed us to see how the perspectives and information our participants shared were similar to and different from what we had seen in prior research. Our findings fit well into some of the larger domains of relational developmental systems metatheory because they highlighted the critical influence of individual assets and ecological assets of an individual’s context, but they also highlighted the importance of specific factors that we had not seen much about in prior work (Lerner et al., 2015).

In addition to this first round of coding, we also conducted a second round of directed content analysis to identify evidence of components of Lerner’s 5Cs of Positive Youth Development in the participant’s responses. This helped us to extend the framework to this population and apply a strengths-based approach to understanding the school experiences of military-connected teens (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Together, these two rounds of coding allowed us to deeply explore the experiences of our participants while balancing the existing research and frameworks. The combination of provisional coding and directed content analysis helped us to explore what might hold true for these participants from earlier work with other individual and contextual factors that were novel.

Post-Study Follow-Through

Many behavioral, social, and health science researchers believe the research process ends when the analyses are complete or the paper has been published. While this might be true for the lifecycle of a singular study, effective community research requires embeddedness and investment over the course of months, years, and possibly even decades (Cacari-Stone et al., 2014). Maintaining connections with former participants and communities is critical for conveying to communities that they matter and ensuring rigorous research over time (Morse, 2015). This is true even (and especially) when you are not directly “getting something” out of the partnership.

Strategies for authentically sustaining the relationship do not require extensive or heavy lifting on the part of the researcher, but they do require intentionality. For example, we recommend sharing completed products (e.g., copies of published papers, presentation slides, etc.) with participants (Long et al., 2019). Receiving updates about the work they supported through their participation shows communities that you value their contributions and want to share their perspectives with wider audiences. If there is sufficient interest from the community and/or related organizations and networks, consider holding an interactive video session or in-person meeting to present the research findings with extra time for discussion and feedback. You might choose to continue regular conversations about the research at hand but also future plans, ideas, needs, and hopes—both the community’s and your own. To accomplish this, it may be helpful to block off a monthly or quarterly check-in meeting on the calendar, with or without an agenda to allow time to share updates in each others’ worlds or to just chat.

Application: Celebrating Shared Products and Keeping Communities Informed

The end of data collection with our participants was really just the beginning of our relationships. Following the conclusion of our initial analyses, our team shared the initial codes and themes with the participants for member checking and review. Sharing the themes in this way helped to demystify the findings of the study and provide an initial product for our participants to be excited about. Additionally, every time we presented any part of the study, I (Author 1) shared a copy of the presentation and a recording, if available, with all participants in a blind email with a description of the event and any notes about reactions from session attendees. Taking the time to share these products with participants has led to ongoing relationships that are built on trust and gratitude. Former participants regularly express thanks for the longevity of the work and for the efforts we have made to share their experiences widely. Additionally, they are excited to hear about the impactful attendee comments, questions, and further research opportunities that have stemmed from this work. Continuing to inform participants about the influence their time, effort, and candor has in research and practice is critical to helping vulnerable communities see research as a safe, effective, and worthwhile venture with the potential to truly impact their daily lives. Sharing products, like this one, with participants is one way that we can show them that we value and appreciate their contributions.

Considerations for Effective Community Research

In this paper, we outlined strategies—some well-established and others more novel—for engaging in community research with vulnerable groups at five time points in the research life cycle: before conducting a study, recruitment, data collection, analysis, and after conducting a study. Illustrations from our work demonstrate what these strategies might look like when applied, though these vignettes are included solely as an example for readers and not a definitive guide to conducting this type of research. In the section that follows, we highlight additional insights and considerations when implementing these or other strategies in community research.

Challenges

Researchers might face several potential challenges when conducting community research and implementing the components outlined above. First, thick descriptions and embedded community research are not intended to be generalizable (Levitt, 2021; Lincoln & Guba, 1985); it is therefore important to be aware of the scope and capabilities of the investigation. There is value in generalizable qualitative inquiry, such as hearing from a large or representative sample of participants in their own words through open-ended items on a survey. However, to attain the level of depth and richness to substantively support vulnerable communities, approaches similar to those outlined above should be considered and, if they are utilized, it should be noted generalizability would not be an appropriate goal of the work (Levitt, 2021).

As researchers who have engaged in this work in any capacity are well aware, community research with vulnerable communities does not, and should not, happen overnight. The investment of time requires forethought and patience. Some attempts to establish partnerships may turn out to be dead-ends. Being persistent but not pushy, with fostering a long-term relationship as the ultimate target, often leads to fruitful results.

Finally, we want to provide a cautionary note against virtue signaling and saviorism, both of which are all too easy traps to fall into but are antithetical to the values of transparency, reciprocity, and equality woven throughout the approaches described above. Virtue signaling, or the concept of people saying or writing things to indicate their morals or values, typically absent of action (Bartholomew, 2015), and saviorism, which refers to the idea that an outside person or group could save another group from their problems (Flaherty, 2016), often erode trust with research participants and communities. Prevailing research paradigms over past centuries have framed scholars as experts that know better than those in the communities of study what they need, how they should think or act, and why their way of life is incorrect or flawed (Glesne, 2016). Embedded in the fabric of Western research, these assumptions and biases must be brought to consciousness and acknowledged by researchers to then move forward and truly center and empower vulnerable communities. Be humble and listen. Communities have the knowledge and the greatest purpose you can serve as a researcher is to learn.

Opportunities and Rewards

Alluded to throughout this article, there are numerous benefits, both professionally and personally, to engaging in community research with vulnerable communities, two of which we will comment on here. First and foremost, the opportunity to build meaningful connections with participants and community members on a human level is a privilege that should not be taken lightly. In our experience, the individuals from vulnerable communities who have shared their stories with us demonstrate laudable vulnerability, bravery, and thoughtfulness. We are better scholars and people for having known them and learned from them. An additional reward is building bridges that lead to real change for the communities we work with. Being entrusted with stories—including the wins, the hardships, the everyday struggles, and the dreams—through our position as researchers gives us the unique opportunity to act as change agents by not only sharing these experiences and perspectives but also crafting data-driven recommendations for future research, practice, and policy supported by, and often directly involving, community members themselves (Mertens, 2021).

Concluding Thoughts

We would like to emphasize that many, if not most, of the strategies proposed throughout this article are not necessarily novel. Instead, we have compiled approaches we believe, through our own research experiences and those of our colleagues, to be effective and feasible when conducting community research. In our estimation, it is the culmination of these suggested research practices before, throughout, and beyond the study itself that lead to meaningful partnerships with vulnerable communities, honor their perspectives and experiences, and hold the potential to enact meaningful, relevant change where needed. While best practices within the standard methodological components of recruitment, data collection, and analysis that we outlined above are largely well-established, we have found that the “pre” and (especially) the “post” work of building and maintaining relationships beyond the confines of a specified scientific inquiry not only lead to richer findings that enhance our work as scholars, but also enrich us personally through meaningful connections with fellow humans. It is our hope that readers, including both emerging and seasoned researchers, find that the lessons and practices we have shared from our own experience prompt new insights, reinforce effective strategies already being used, promote the application of these strategies, and ignite a dialogue among researchers who wish to engage more fully in community research with vulnerable populations in a way that accurately captures the voices and perspectives of the people we are intending to support.