Promising practices and constraining factors in mobilizing community-engaged research

Abstract

This article describes a project involving 13 community focus groups on the topic of anti-racism and belonging where the researchers concluded each group with a robust discussion about how the group would prefer to receive the findings from the project. Analysis of this data, existing literature, and the practical experiences of the researchers revealed that while there are multiple “bridges” researchers can take to connect their research with community-level users, and although it is desirable to offer tailored approaches for specific audiences, there are significant barriers and challenges for truly effective engagement. By describing the various factors that determined which bridges were taken, we hope to help other community-based researchers imagine new ways of mobilizing knowledge, consider promising practices to guide the connection of knowledge to the community and shine a light on the very real constraints of time, budget, personnel, and university system considerations that impact knowledge mobilization decisions.

Introduction

Although multiple forms of knowledge mobilization are not new, the proliferation of internet-based methods of sharing knowledge has left community-engaged researchers and researchers working within communities wondering what to do with their research findings beyond peer-reviewed articles. How can they share their results with the community? Should they write a report? Use infographics? Podcasts? Theater and drama? Video series? Documentaries? Social media campaigns? Toolkits? Research briefs? Blogs? Websites? Community presentations? Others? Although it is already known that co-creation or co-production in research can increase knowledge mobilization by ensuring that the research is relevant to the community (Skipper and Pepler, 2021), this article contributes to the existing literature by examining the knowledge user’s perspectives and preferences of different types of knowledge dissemination when there are diverse sectors represented within the involved communities. Much of the advice around impactful knowledge mobilization involves tailoring to a specific audience, but how can researchers realistically mobilize knowledge to a broad range of community partners across different sectors?

By drawing on personal journal entries, emails, and the data from the 13 focus groups mentioned above, we explored this topic with three questions in mind: (1) What are promising practices for knowledge mobilization for community-engaged projects, as defined by community members? (2) What challenges and barriers exist that prevent researchers from mobilizing their research in these ways, and (3) How might researchers navigate these challenges and barriers while still responding to the needs and desires of community members? While the first two questions offer insight into suggestions for navigating knowledge mobilization with multiple audiences, the third question contributes to the existing literature by using a more autoethnographic approach which provides insight into ethical and practical considerations. By exploring these three separate areas, we provide deeper understandings of how community-based researchers can mobilize their research, while understanding the very real challenges. By detailing the process of our decision-making through this process, this article sheds light on the considerations along the way.

Literature review

There are different theories about knowledge mobilization, along with a plethora of terms around knowledge mobilization, such as dissemination, implementation, diffusion, research utilization, knowledge exchange, and knowledge translation (Graham et al., 2006). The terms themselves can be confusing to those outside of research communities. Generally speaking, although the terms can emphasize slightly different aspects of the process, knowledge mobilization refers to “captur[ing] the notion of momentum, iteration, and reciprocity—the moving of knowledge from what we know to using research to affect change” (Flynn and Ford, 2020: 241) or “getting knowledge used by stakeholders” (Graham et al., 2006: 16).

Existing literature emphasizes the importance of knowledge mobilization for community impact (Abma et al., 2017; Powell et al., 2018; Saltmarsh et al., 2009), and includes co-creation approaches that involve research participants and partner organizations at every stage of the research development (identification of the research question, design, data collection, dissemination, etc.). Co-creation is a critical method in community-based research as it takes into consideration diverse perspectives and ideas in deciding what knowledge is needed, and how and where knowledge can be mobilized for impact (Skipper and Pepler, 2021). Several researchers have employed participants in community-based research projects in disciplines such as health care, social sciences, and environmental studies (Camargo Plazas et al., 2019; Israel et al., 2005; Lichtveld et al., 2016; van Weel-Baumgarten et al., 2021). Some have emphasized actions that can close the gap between research and practice (Graham and Tetroe, 2007; Graham et al., 2006), while others put forward strategies that can transgress borders between “academic” and “non-academic” knowledge, such as adjusting the complexity of writing for particular knowledge users, as well as strategies for connecting knowledge and communities. For example, holding events that are appealing to community members (presenting in a pub, or at a backyard barbecue, for example), and creating a multitude of different media approaches may be valuable (Anderson and McLachlan, 2016; Davies et al., 2015). Authors have also written about knowledge mobilization for specific communities, such as research in Arctic communities (Flynn and Ford, 2020) or research with Indigenous youth (Camargo Plazas et al., 2019). Other authors have emphasized the importance of reflective practice, ensuring that researchers enquire and implement feedback from community partners (Wallerstein et al., 2020). The framing of community engagement, which refers to “relationships that connect the intellectual resources of the college with knowledge resources outside the college that are grounded in the qualities of reciprocity, mutual respect, shared authority, and co-creation of goals and outcomes” (Saltmarsh et al., 2009: 8), encapsulates the collaborative nature of both the research project in this article, and the style of knowledge mobilization most desired by the research team and community members.

It is clear from the literature above that including co-participants throughout the entire research process can increase knowledge mobilization, and also that the type of mobilization employed should be tailored to specific groups, communities, stakeholders, or individuals in the research. However, in research projects with a broad selection of community members, it can be difficult to know which approach to take, and researchers might end up taking a haphazard approach, based on external factors such as available funding, skills with graphic design, and so on. As Flynn and Ford pointed out, there is no specific checklist of actions that can ensure effective knowledge mobilization, as it varies across regions and communities.

Background

This article furthers the discourse around definitions of knowledge mobilization and community-engaged research by exploring the constraints and challenges that were encountered during a project entitled Community Voices: Inclusivity and Anti-Racism. To help inform a model for determining knowledge mobilization pathways for a broad-scale community consultation project, the authors asked 13 focus groups, as part of an ongoing study examining anti-racism and belonging, to discuss how they would prefer to hear the results of the research they were undertaking. Participants from this study were broadly representative of our community, including professions such as healthcare workers, teachers, students, government workers, nonprofit workers, as well as community representatives from Indigenous and immigrant communities. After the appropriate ethics approvals, the study was co-led by the director of the local immigration partnership and a university-based research center in the same community. From these 13 focus groups, we recorded discussions, transcribed, and anonymized them, and then analyzed their responses using a thematic analysis. For the purposes of this paper, we are not focusing on the results of the ongoing project relating to anti-racism, which we have written about elsewhere (Lam et al., 2021), but are focusing on responses relating to knowledge mobilization given in response to the question: How would you like to hear about the findings of this study? These findings formed the basis of this paper, but as we were writing, we recognized that while many of the ideas shared by community members were innovative and meaningful, there were significant barriers to fully actioning their suggestions. There were significant logistical constraints which were detracting from the goals of co-creation, shared authority, and reciprocity.

As such, we decided to include a further level of analysis based on our own recollections and engagements with the project. We began documenting our process as we sought to determine how to move forward with these ideas, and we began journaling about conversations, challenges, and barriers that needed to be considered. For example, after meetings with the community partners, I (Lam) made notes about what had happened, my affective responses, and the various factors that complicated future actions. I then began writing these, grouping them together as common threads emerged. I shared these early writings with my co-author and she added her own reflections. Then together we discussed each thread, bringing in relevant literature, which again prompted more reflections. Although this was not a strict duo-ethnography (Norris and Sawyer, 2012), this part of the process—stories begetting stories—felt very much like one.

Methodology

There were 125 participants in the Community Voices: Inclusivity and Anti-Racism project, spread across 13 focus groups. In each of the 13 focus groups, there were 10–12 participants led by one university faculty member and one research assistant, who was tasked with taking notes in case of recording failure. Of the 13 focus groups, 12 recorded properly, and for one, we relied on the notes taken by the research assistant. Participants were invited through the community organization, and targeted a broad range of sectors including education, healthcare, newcomer groups, Indigenous groups, government, and the non-profit sectors.

These participants were not known to the researchers, although the nature of a small community meant that there were occasional points of contact. For recruitment of participants, the community organization, a local non-profit organization with a strong community-building mandate, sent out invitations to local employers, non-profit organizations, government agencies, school divisions, health authorities, etc. and also posted the information on the community organization’s website. We did not collect demographic data on the participants, although in the transcripts participants self-identified as they felt appropriate in the conversations. As this study was conducted during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the focus groups were conducted via Zoom, and run simultaneously using Zoom’s breakout room feature. Each focus group was facilitated by an experienced researcher and a student research assistant, used guided discussion questions, and lasted approximately 1 hour. Ethics approval for the study was granted by Brandon University Research Ethics Committee (BUREC). Although we had initially planned to group the focus groups into homogenous categories (such as “non-profit,” “government,” “health care,” “education,” etc.), the nature of focus groups on Zoom meant that we were not able to sort people into these categories in a timely manner, and ended up randomly assigning people to more heterogenous groups. This type of grouping may have led to richer discussion on the issue of knowledge dissemination, as we discuss below.

Each recording was transcribed and anonymized by research assistants involved in the broader project (see acknowledgment). We (authors) coded the data and identified the themes using a thematic analysis process (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Maguire and Delahunt, 2017). For the purposes of this article, only the final question was analyzed. To do this, initial coding was completed by the co-authors individually (Saldaña, 2021). Initial codes were then discussed together until data saturation was reached. Our multidisciplinary backgrounds helped us collaborate to identify the overarching common themes.

Many of the themes described by the participants are supported by existing literature. The themes include the need for tailoring for specific audiences, the need for a relational focus, mediums for sharing knowledge that are easy to use and easy to access, using existing mediums of communication, and highlighting innovative ideas for knowledge mobilization, such as hosting a barbecue or other interactive events to discuss the project with the public. There was also a focus on the need for multiple avenues. One participant summarized this well:

I think the risk of not using a multi-media distribution is you’re setting up barriers, right? If you just pick one, if someone doesn’t have access to that, you’ve have just limited your potential. So, the more methods, the better.

However, the findings from these community consultations were met with logistical difficulties. Although we wanted to pursue many of these good ideas, we also needed to make decisions about how to spend our resources. We began documenting our process as we sought to determine how to move forward with these ideas, and we began journaling about conversations, challenges, and barriers that needed to be considered, such as university system constraints, personnel changes, funding, and timelines.

It is clear that there are multiple “bridges” researchers can take to connect their research with community-level users. By exploring the various factors that determine which bridges are taken, we hope to help other community-based researchers imagine new ways of mobilizing knowledge, consider promising practices to guide the connection of knowledge to the community, and to shine light on the very real logistical considerations and constraints that impact knowledge mobilization. In the results that follow, as with the quote from the participant above, we have used verbatim quotes to illustrate our themes. Due to the nature of how the focus groups were recorded, we are not able to identify the participants. We chose not to assign pseudonyms, since many are coded by gender and ethnicity and we wanted to avoid assigning identity characteristics that could influence the reader. Instead, we have distinguished the quotes by writing them in italics.

What participants wanted regarding knowledge mobilization

Participants expressed various ideas for mobilizing the research findings from our project. Thematic analysis revealed the need for: (1) Tailoring for Specific Audiences; (2) Focusing on Interactive Relationships; (3) Accessibility and Ease of Use; (4) Leveraging Existing Mechanisms for Knowledge Mobilization; and (5) Innovative, Community-Led Ideas.

Tailoring for specific audiences

The theme of tailoring for specific audiences reflects participants’ desires for multiple avenues in research dissemination. Participants noted the importance of first identifying the group or organization the research was intending to reach before meaningful dissemination modalities could be determined. As one participant further explained:

I think the question for me is not just around how and where, but to whom, I think that this information needs to get in the hands and on the iPads of our leaders, leaders at government level, leaders in education, leaders in workplaces. It’s not just about where you’re going to plunk the data, but who you’re going to give it to and who’s going to be able to have access to it.

Participants felt that electronic correspondence that could be accessed through an iPad was one way to reach those in leadership positions. Other participants also recognized the need for specific dissemination strategies for targeted audiences. As one participant shared,

And so, if we are able to identify the source, probably could be the [local organization]. It could be somewhere that people can really access it.

For other participants, they supported multiple forms of dissemination, such as,

How about multiple ways of disseminating this information for everyone’s tastes and needs?

Participants also pointed out that even within one realm of dissemination, such as social media, different groups use the mediums differently. One participant indicated,

I think to think about this broadly, trying to get this type of information out, if you’re trying to broadcast it to a variety of age groups, then you have to effectively target different types of social media. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Instagram.

Sometimes they felt this was due to age,

Those mostly now on Instagram are younger generation. Facebook is for middle aged to older aged, you know. It depends what age group you’re looking for. . . who’s interested in that message.

And sometimes they simply pointed out that “even if it goes to one place, it’s not going to get where it needs to be.” For many participants, there was a clear consensus that the gap between the targeted audiences and the form of dissemination utilized needed be bridged.

Focusing on interactive relationships

Many of the participants in the focus groups felt that findings needed to be presented in a relational manner. This could be seen in comments about location, such as,

It needs to be at the grassroots community level – if you’re going to present this material, go to the people. . .come to the downtown park. Why can’t we have a barbeque?

Similarly, another participant said,

[We need] places where people can actually interact once they received information, rather than taking the information.

In these (and other) voices, interaction, safety, and discussion are prioritized. As one participant expressed,

It speaks of having that safe space and I think it’s come up multiple times how social media actually isn’t always a safe place to have some of these discussions. It can be, things can be misconstrued. Language is highly polarizing. . . having a personal group that you feel you can be vulnerable with and share these discussions. . . is a key point.

Participants also mentioned that anti-racism is a process and as such, the conversation needed to be ongoing. As one participant shared,

Another thing I was just thinking about is like ways to keep the conversation going with the larger community, because there’s lots of us here and where we actually care about this and want to talk about it, but we’re not the only ones. So, yeah, ways that the larger community could also be engaged to keep this conversation going. So, there could be some support of guidelines for people who want to facilitate a conversation, perhaps.

Participants also pointed out the need for supportive guidelines to continue facilitating conversations, having discussions with teams, and ensuring groups foster safety and vulnerability.

Accessibility and ease of use

Participants had many ideas about specific mechanisms for sharing research knowledge, including social media, infographics, websites, articles in the local paper, articles in national media, visual posters, accessible knowledge, iPads, reports, concise summaries, emails, videos, books, pamphlets, cards distributed through food delivery, memes, and oral presentations that are recorded and distributed. When looking further at these suggestions, we can see a focus on accessibility and ease of use, such as, “Putting it out in other languages and having it translated so that it’s accessible,” and,

Accessibility of information is actually a major issue for our clients. We work with many clients who have cognitive impairments or learning disabilities. They’re not interacting with this data because more often than not, it’s written in the form of a lengthy report with a lot of jargon. And so, to have something that is visual, that is simple, that ties directly to them and how they identify with this problem, really has helped with engagement and conversation.

For some participants, there was a recognition that the language of certain research dissemination methods was not meaningful to certain populations, such as those with cognitive impairments. One participant summarized, “I guess anything that puts it in a form that is easy to disseminate,” and another, “[I want] something to read that’s easy, concise, and clear.” “Clear and concise” were words used often, along with words like “digestible,” “sharable,” ‘engaging, “emotional,” and “thought-provoking.”

Leveraging existing mechanisms for knowledge mobilization

Many of the ideas mentioned by community members focused on the importance of using existing mechanisms for sharing information to also share research knowledge. Participants pointed to the local newspaper, “I would still always want things to go in the local newspapers. . .because they are still widely read.” Others mentioned,

I would also suggest to put it on a website like [local forum website]. . .so that people can go back to the website. The websites is more static so that people can go back to it if they want to read about it or get more information.

Others pointed to leveraging existing places where people gather: “Encourage schools like even high schools to say, here’s a report, write something about it, engage with this dialogue in community spaces and talk about it,” or where people hear information presented: “City council meetings are open to the public and can take delegations and presentations.”

Innovative, community-led ideas

The innovative, community-led ideas for how to engage with the knowledge put forward through this project were ideas that are valuable for researchers thinking about how to engage multiple audiences across disciplines for broad impact. Within the data, there are several ideas which stand out for their creativity. These are particularly notable ideas, such as hosting a public barbecue where discussions about the research findings can be explored in a dialogic manner with diverse community members. As one participant explained,

Why can’t we have a barbecue? Are you willing to go and sit on the grass at [local park] and break food with the guy who suffers from the addiction?

Another was sharing information through food delivery services:

Find a way to connect with the food delivery. If you could get all of your delivery people to deliver a different thing every week, a different little card every week with the food, you’d hit a whole lot more people

This is often a source of advertising, but perhaps could be leveraged for sharing research findings to a broad audience. These ideas cross normative boundaries of dissemination and are not typical methods that researchers would use to share their findings, but might, nevertheless, improve accessibility for the community. Whether or not these would be successful knowledge mobilization avenues requires further study.

From the community’s perspective, one of the benefits of the project was the ability to raise public awareness of their organization. Thus, we made intentional decisions about where the project would be launched, how participants would be recruited, and where findings would be shared, all with the goal of promoting the community organization.

At the same time, due to challenges described earlier, these decisions were impacted because of logistical issues such as available funding, the need to deliver outputs by particular deadlines, and personnel turnover of key leaders involved in guiding the project.

Barriers to knowledge mobilization

The idea and practices brought forward by participants included a desire for multiple forms of knowledge mobilization, delivered in ways that are accessible, user-friendly, relational, and that include avenues already known to them in their regular lives. However, there can be a significant disconnect between those desires, and the logistical decisions made by research project leaders. In the analysis that follows, we drew upon our own experiences in this project, including personal journal entries, emails, and our own recollections, to examine this disconnect between the aims of broad community engagement and the realities of university considerations, personnel turnover, and funding and timeline constraints.

In the sections that follow, it is our hope that by sharing this more personal experience through autoethnographic methodologies which explore the personal within the broader context (Poulos, 2021), this study can “open spaces of critique” (Marom, 2019: 7) and “engage audiences to rethink and reimagine” (Clandinin, 2013: 51). Specifically, I (Lam) began writing stories (Clandinin, 2013) about what was happening during this project. During the writing process, and to verify my recollections, I went back through emails and journal entries from that time. I then shared the stories with my coauthor, who was able to ask critical questions and provide feedback with further clarified the stories. This narrative process resulted in the emergence of insights around particular themes that ran as key “threads” in the stories.

University considerations

While it is recognized that community-engaged scholarship aids universities in complementing their efforts, the university system has embedded mechanisms which act in opposition to authentic engagement with community partners. As Saltmarsh et al. (2019) state, “scholars who practice community-engaged scholarship often do so within institutional contexts in which standards and incentives for career advancement have not kept pace with changes in knowledge production and dissemination” (p. 9). In practical terms, what this means is that tenure and promotion committees may value scholarly journal articles (often hidden behind paywalls) over reports written for community members and housed on an open website. This disconnect between what the community desires and values, and what the institution requires for advancement, is one that has been thoroughly reviewed in the literature (Ellison and Eatman, 2008; Johnsen, 2015; Saltmarsh et al., 2009, 2019), and one that is situated within larger neoliberal, market-based views about the role of a post-secondary institution. It is also important to point out the colonialist and imperialist implications of the assumptions behind making knowledge in the first place (Dean et al., 2019; Kouritzin, 2019). From the literature it is clear that rewarding community-engaged scholarship that is respectful, reciprocal, responsible, and relevant (Kirkness and Barnhardt, 2001; Pidgeon, 2016) will require a shift in understanding about what scholarship is valued, both through tenure and promotion processes, and through understanding about the time and resources required for authentic engagement. In the meantime, however, there is a disconnect between the current paradigm of research valued by universities and the outcomes as desired and described by community members. Straddling this disconnect is often a personal struggle, as individual faculty members feel pressured to opt for more “traditional” (i.e., valued by tenure committees) forms of knowledge mobilization, or choose to “repackage” their scholarship as such, or do so in addition to other forms, rather than fully engaging in community-engaged scholarship (Moore and Ward, 2010). As Kouritzin (2019) wrote, “the new paradigm is one in which individual achievements take precedence over public service” (p. 1110).

In our own project, we felt this tension as well. Our own positioning affects this a great deal. The principal investigator, (Lam), is in her fourth year of a tenure-track position. She needs to make decisions about how she spends her time leading a busy research center that has a core mandate of community-engaged research, while also looking to the future to ensure that she is able to continue in this position long-term. The disconnect between what community scholarship can look like, and what the tenure committee may require can be vast, and is compounded by other issues related to personnel, funding, and timelines, as will be explored below.

Akech Mayuom, who co-authored this paper, began as a research assistant, and graduated partway through the project but continued as a co-investigator. As someone who eventually wants to go into academia, she is thinking about future graduate school applications, and eventual job prospects. In this regard, admissions and hiring committees may also value more traditional scholarship. Looking back through correspondence, we noted that there was a conspicuous absence of discussion about these issues. Nevertheless, as we began writing this article, we both recognized that these thoughts were never far from our minds. This in itself is a significant finding. Why did we feel we could not discuss these pressures and these issues with one another? Why did we stay silent about our own motivations? The silence in the face of these pressures is an area that requires further exploration and research, but may be related to research on mounting pressures within academia, including pressures to produce the “gold standard of evidence, peer-reviewed publications,” and the resulting anxiety, stress, and both physical and mental health issues (Kouritzin, 2019: 1097). The irony that we are, at this moment, writing this for publication in an academic journal does not escape us.

Personnel turnover

Partway through the project, the main community contact for this project found a new position with a different organization. He started his new position shortly after the first report was compiled. When this community co-director left the organization, I (Lam) met twice with the new director, who valued the project but did not see herself as someone ready to champion it within the community. This was understandable, as she was new to the organization and needed time to learn the new role. But it left the project without a strong community leader. Up until that point, we had intentionally marketed everything within that project as coming from their organization, with the support of the university research center. For example, recruitment for the project participants was undertaken through the community organization’s website. Mailouts to recruit participants were written by the community director, on their organization’s letterhead. During this time, one of my major concerns was that participants from the community would think to themselves, “Whatever happened with that research consultation I attended months ago?.” Then that person would go to the original organization’s website, and, seeing no sign of the project, might assume this was an extractive research project without sufficient follow-up. That would work in direct contrast to our aims of improving the reputation and reach of the community organization (and the research center as well) in the community at large.

In the end, the original co-director took the project to his new organization, and the project itself could continue thanks to his willingness to continue with the project in his new role. However, during this time we had discussions about the “brand” of the initiative, as it so closely resembled the original community organization. We ended up hosting the report on the university webpage and promoting it on university social media. This impacted the way that we chose to mobilize the findings from the project. What was intended to be community-based knowledge mobilization ended up being hosted on the university research center’s webpage. Many of the opportunities and invitations that had been opened by the project (such as requests for presentations to the city council, or suggestions for greater community engagement around the topic) were not taken up because of this change, along with other barriers mentioned in this article.

Funding timelines

There is a disconnect between the short-term, project-based research funding model and the type of engaged community scholarship envisioned in this research. Various aspects of this disconnect are taken up by various scholars including Jacquez (2014) who describes the hesitation of community organizations to partner with universities charging large overhead costs. Challenges related to limited availability of funding for this type of work were also explored by Nguyen et al. (2020), who wrote “extensive time and financial investment must be recognized to establish and sustain true partnerships as it is often overlooked by funders” (p. 14).

Our project began with a small amount of seed funding from the community partner. In addition to this funding, we were awarded another small grant from our university. The majority of funding from both sources was allocated to research assistant time, with an additional small amount for an NVivo qualitative analysis software license, and another small amount for printing (to clarify, although NVivo was used for the overarching project on anti-racism and belonging, it was not used as an analysis tool for the analysis undertaken around knowledge dissemination). When applying for the grant funds, we did not include funds for presentations, community events, web resources, graphic design, or other ideas for knowledge mobilization. In fact, after printing 25 copies of the final report, our amount for knowledge mobilization (“printing”) was nearly expended.

Our university has a grant dedicated to knowledge mobilization. In addition, there are other grants through larger federal agencies that might have been interested in this type of work. However, this process is time-consuming, and is not always workable within community personnel timelines. For example, our project report was written in June 2021. University grants for knowledge mobilization funding were not accepted until November, and then, if successful, funding would be released the following year. By that time, even if the graphic designers, writers, or videographers hired with those funds worked expediently, the memory of the original community consultation held in March 2021 would have long faded.

My (Lam’s) journal entries during the time when these decisions were made show concern about the demand for a variety of knowledge mobilization activities within the very real constraints of academic schedules and funding requirements. For example, one entry reads: “We [research assistant and author] talked about the time factor. There is interest from different community groups to have tailored presentations, but that is not realistic given the amount of time we have” (Lam et al., 2021). Another later entry shows the same concern, coupled with the word capacity: “I met with [community co-director] today to talk about how to move the project forward. I mentioned that there might be interest from different groups in the community to have presentations at their specific organizations, but that I was worried about time and capacity.” (Lam et al., 2021). These challenges around capacity stemmed from the workload creep described by Kouritzin (2019), where academics detailed the heavy burdens they carry which prevented them from engaging deeply in the types of activities that truly brought them joy. In our case, our available funds expended and our schedules packed, community engagement became a burden rather than a joy.

“We don’t want this to fizzle out”—how we navigated the end of the project

The findings and analysis above detail promising practices in mobilizing community-engaged research. However, these promising practices can be influenced or constrained by the realities of university considerations, personnel changes, timelines and funding considerations, and other factors. To provide a deeper understanding of how these look in practice, we conclude this section by sharing a summary of how the project concluded.

Following the data collection and analysis, we compiled the results into a report. The report was beautifully designed and hosted for free on the research center website. As much as possible within the constraints described above, we tried to promote the report using the tools available. I (Lam) drove around the city to drop off hard copies of the report to many key community partners who had been involved in the project. In subsequent research events involving the same community partners, we brought copies of the report and gave them away to people who were interested. Both of these mechanisms (hand delivery and sharing reports at subsequent events) was welcomed and after two research events, we had to order more hard copies.

The faculty of education on campus and the research center had shared the cost of hiring a social media engagement person several years prior, so I (Lam) met with her to promote the findings of the report on social media. She timed the release so it arrived on Canadian Multiculturalism day. However, despite the post being viewed often and being designed professionally, it received zero clicks. While we must be cautious not to draw conclusions from one unsuccessful post, it does underscore what both the literature review and our own participants reiterated: Interactive relationships are key. Perhaps this is why handing out hard copies was more impactful than using social media.

However, in a project like ours, it was not possible to build deep relationships with every participant or even every organization represented. To address this, we needed to think of efficient ways to still provide a more human approach. In one journal entry, I (Lam) wrote:

He [community co-director] has a community engagement person [on staff], and so we thought that maybe between her and my research assistant, they might be able to handle some of the presentations. We also talked about making a video, which could be made once and shared broadly. That would not be tailored, obviously, but could still be shared (Lam et al., 2021).

Since writing that, Covid has prevented us from conducting any community presentations, and a video has not yet been made. However, our choice of video is a strategic one, and one we would still like to explore, as it allows for more engaging knowledge mobilization, and does not require multiple presentations.

Another way that we navigated these challenges was to apply for postdoctoral funding that would allow us to create a new position that could carry the project forward for an additional 2 years. We were successful in this endeavor, and this has allowed for us to overcome several of the barriers that hindered us in the early stages of this project. For example, finding external funding for a postdoc position is considered a success for a research center, and that will be valued in a tenure and promotion process, thus addressing some university considerations around capacity and decisions about how time is spent. It also addresses personnel turnover, as the position is funded for 2 years and provides continuity for the project. Finally, it brings additional capacity and allows for an extension of the original timelines, thus enabling the project to move further. To accomplish this, our community partner solicited funds from additional partnering organizations to create an “anti-racism and inclusivity fund” which was then matched with research dollars to create this new position. All this being the case, it should not go unspoken that the amount of work required to put together this additional endeavor has been monumental, and required additional community consultation and engagement, along with significant community resources in order to be successful.

Discussion

Knowledge mobilization is an important consideration to ensure community access for any academic project. To understand how participants wanted to receive the results of a research project we asked 13 groups to reflect on the mode of knowledge mobilization that was most meaningful to them. Many themes were identified during the thematic analysis. Some were specific, and others were more abstract by highlighting the importance of connection and ease of access.

Participants appreciated the importance of creating knowledge mobilization initiatives that are specific to individual users. A study conducted by Crick and Hartling (2015) found that critical appraisals were more fitting for researchers and funders. On the other hand, infographics were noted to be more visually appealing and considered more fitting for public and media use. Similarly, Camargo Plazas et al. (2019) use of popular theater with Indigenous youth was found to be successful for disseminating research findings on racial biases in the health care system by creating conversations. Participants in our project acknowledged that dissemination tools should be used for specific groups depending on needs. While researchers try their absolute best to disseminate findings that are consistent with participants’ needs, they are sometimes met with the sorts of barriers discussed earlier. In our project, participants had many great ideas for dissemination that we could not fulfill due to funding and timeline issues, personnel turnover, and university constraints. For the participants in our project, not all their ideas for knowledge mobilization were met. This sort of happening can result in loss of trust in the researchers. Suggestions for navigating similar complexity in the future involve honest conversations with participants regarding what the project could or could not realistically accomplish. Moreover, having participants or community members involved as co-creators of knowledge mobilization initiatives allows for innovative ideas to surface while not exhausting resources and the leadership team (Anderson and McLachlan, 2016). Camargo Plazas et al. (2019) involved Indigenous youth from Alberta’s community school system in disseminating data that explored Indigenous peoples’ experiences in emergency departments. The authors, along with Indigenous community leaders, supported youth in creating scripts for a theater production based on the research findings. The mobilization initiative used by Camargo Plazas et al. (2019) can be characterized as creative and relational which required considerable time and energy. This was mitigated through their collaboration with and support from community participants. Nevertheless, issues of additional labor for marginalized communities need to be addressed and compensation in terms of time and effort should be provided.

Participants in our project spoke about the importance of interactive relationships when mobilizing knowledge. They shared unique ideas which are not commonly seen but might create conditions that bring diverse groups of people together. Anderson and McLachlan (2016) describe how people from diverse social demographics have differing access to knowledge. Linear knowledge mobilization, involving the passage of knowledge from researchers to academic studies, polices or applied practice, creates injustice in access, and creation of knowledge (Abma et al., 2017). As such, social gaps need to be closed to achieve a relational approach to dissemination. The idea of a barbecue, a suggestion by one of the participants, recognizes food as unifying practice (Waxman, 2008).

Collaboration with community organizations is not without challenges like that of competing priorities, the reality of working in silos and organizational turnovers as discussed earlier. However, it is an important and necessary endeavor in participatory research. Saltmarsh et al. (2009) describe indicators of excellence in community-engaged scholarship. Many of these indicators, such as interdisciplinarity, intercultural engagement, broad impact, and recognition of community partners, were embedded throughout this project, as the topic of belonging and anti-racism was one which crossed disciplinary boundaries, engaged many different cultural groups, and had potential for impact across multiple arenas.

The craft of participatory research

As this article has described, navigating complex situations that require the building of enthusiasm without false expectations; challenging assumptions and pushing boundaries without exhausting participants, resources, and team members; dealing with ethical issues as they arise and other unanticipated “twists and turns,” requires not only strong project management skills, but a also clear orientation in participatory research. For us, this orientation is values driven, and we would like to offer three suggestions for consideration: (1) the value of relationship over outcomes; (2) the value of flexibility; (3) the value of humility.

Within a system that prioritizes outcomes so strongly that it ties its advancement processes to measurable items, it can be difficult to champion the building and maintenance of relationships. Yet community-based researchers must do so. At times, this means slowing down an academic timetable so as to build trust, show appreciation, explain unfamiliar processes, and provide support. However, the benefits of conducting research with this value at its core promotes ethical research; it also prevents the type of research that one community member once described to me (Lam) by saying, “Researchers like to gather data so they can tell us what we already know” (Lam, personal communication, 2021). If community-based research is to be useful and meaningful to the community, it is best done in relationship with community members.

Second, valuing flexibility means making changes along the way. All projects, whether community-based or not, will go through changes that require a certain degree of flexibility. However, when conducted within the bounds of a relationship with community members or organizations, all things are subject to change. New team members may arrive or others may depart. Funding priorities may shift and the knowledge that was once desperately needed may give way to other research needs. In my (Lam’s) experience, one project once underwent four ethics amendments in a single year. These changes often require a great deal of time and effort from the researchers, in part because processes of accountability are put in place with more linear projects in mind. However, viewing these changes (to budgets, to ethics forms, to reporting, etc.) as part of the process rather than additional labor is helpful and allows community-based researchers to continue their work in ethical and relationship-honoring ways.

Finally, humility is a necessary value for community-based researchers. Community-based research is conducted on a shoestring budget, and in relationship with teams of people who want different things. Honoring lived experiences and the knowledge held within communities means holding our ideas with epistemic humility, acknowledging that we are there to learn and grow together through the research process. We may bring some knowledge about how research can be undertaken, and we offer that as a gift to the group. The group, in return, offers back the gifts of connection to participants, knowledge of lived experiences, contextual understandings for analysis, and avenues for meaningful dissemination. In the grand scheme of it all, we play a small part, and approaching community-based research with humility is an important value for the craft of participatory research.

Conclusion

In this article, we have addressed a gap in examining the knowledge user’s perspective or preferences of different types of knowledge mobilization in community-based research, especially when engaging community members across sectors. We described findings from 13 community focus groups that included a question about how each group would prefer to receive the findings from the project. Using that data, and drawing on existing literature, as well as the practical experiences of the researchers, the researchers concluded that there are multiple “bridges” researchers can take to connect their research with community-level users. Additionally, while it is desirable to offer tailored approaches for specific audiences, interactive and relational foci, with accessible and easy-access to the knowledge mobilization, there are also significant barriers and challenges in implementation of a range of approaches.

In many ways, authoring this article has felt like a detailed exploration of the ways in which we have failed to engage the community members meaningfully in the ways they themselves requested. For example, we have not hosted in-person events due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but also due to our own lack of time and resources. We have not been able to tailor presentations for multiple audiences. We have not even been able to complete a short video describing the outcomes of the project. These decisions were taken despite a deep commitment to community-engaged scholarship and a clear understanding of ways we could move the project forward. For example, in my journal entries about this project, I wrote, “I can see how that would really make an impact if we could tailor the applicability of the findings to certain contexts” (Lam et al., 2021).

Part of the challenge stems from the bifurcation of research and knowledge mobilization as though the two are distinct and running along linear timelines, rather than acknowledging their complexity and interconnectedness. Moving forwards, community-based scholars must advocate for funding for both research and knowledge mobilization that can be used as the research evolves. Such a model would have allowed us the flexibility to take up the opportunities presented by community partners as they arose. In addition, institutional recognition of the time and effort involved in community-based scholarship and examination of tenure and promotion requirements is vital, as is preparedness for unexpected events (such as personnel turnover). Such actions would benefit researchers and research institutions alike. Most importantly, it will help to ensure more diverse and more meaningful engagement with research knowledge across communities.