research paper on community organizing

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health
• PMC10093850

Community Organising Frameworks, Models, and Processes to Improve Health: A Systematic Scoping Review

Shanti kadariya.

1 School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia

Lauren Ball

2 School of SHS–Nutrition and Dietetics, Griffith University, Gold Coast 4215, Australia

Henriette Ryding

Julie hobby, julie marsh, karly bartrim, lana mitchell, joy parkinson.

3 Australian eHealth Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Herston 4029, Australia

Associated Data

Available on request.

Community involvement engages, empowers, and mobilises people to achieve their shared goals by addressing structural inequalities in the social and built environment. Through this review, we summarised published information on models, frameworks, and/or processes of community organising used in the context of health initiatives or interventions and documented the outcomes following their use. A systematic scoping review was conducted in three databases with no restrictions on the date of publication, country, or written language. Out of 5044 studies, 38 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The targeted health outcomes explored by the studies were diverse and included sub-domains such as the promotion of a healthy lifestyle, sexual and reproductive health, access to healthcare and equity, and substance abuse and chronic disease management. The outcomes of most initiatives or interventions were promising, with positive changes reported for the target populations. A wide variation was noted in the models, frameworks, or processes of community organising utilised in these studies. We concluded that variation implies that no single model, framework, or process seems to have predominance over others in implementing community organising as a vehicle of positive social change within the health domain. The review also highlighted the need for a more standardised approach to the implementation and evaluation of these initiatives. We recommend that it is essential to foster public and non-governmental sector partnerships to promote community-driven health promotion efforts for a more sustainable approach to these initiatives.

1. Introduction

Community involvement in research engages and mobilises people with an aim to achieve their shared goals by addressing structural inequalities in the social and built environment [ 1 ]. Communities that collectively take responsibility to influence and modify their social and built environment for the purposes of better health and wellbeing are increasingly recognised as effective vehicles for positive change [ 2 ]. Consequently, health promotion initiatives that genuinely engage communities are recognised as being more likely to succeed than those that do not engage communities [ 3 , 4 , 5 ].

Community organising primarily aims to bring people together to act on their common concerns; develop and expand their sense of community ownership; empower them; foster collaboration; and ultimately make the community powerful for the common good [ 6 ]. Community organising is an approach to community engagement that assumes communities can act on problems important to them collectively and make desired change. It also assumes the need for people to fully participate in managing organic change, thus supporting sustained positive change. Since these efforts to improve health are driven by community members rather than policymakers, health professionals or other stakeholders, the communities’ priorities take precedence [ 7 , 8 ].

Researchers from several disciplines, including health, have embraced community organising in their research and/or interventions, due to the increased likelihood of success when launched as community organising initiatives [ 4 , 5 ]. Many of those researchers have adopted one or more theoretical/research frameworks, models and community organising processes to structure, inform and/or guide their intervention(s). As a result, the current health literature on community organising comprises diverse initiatives that have adopted a wide range of frameworks, models, and/or processes of community organising. However, to our knowledge there is currently no published study that consolidates and summarises those initiatives and their frameworks, models, and processes in one place. Having this information consolidated will not only provide an opportunity to explore the variety of frameworks, models, and processes but also help identify how they were implemented, the gaps in their implementation, and the ways to strengthen their implementation in future health initiatives.

Therefore, this scoping review will answer the following questions:

• (1) What models, frameworks, and processes have been used in community organising initiatives that advance health?
• (2) What target health behaviours or topics have community organising initiatives addressed?

This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines [ 9 ] and has been reported in line with PRISMA-SCR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines [ 10 ].

3. Search Strategy

Relevant studies were searched in three databases, SCOPUS, Sociological Abstracts, and Google Scholar. Free texts, MeSH terms, and controlled terms were used to construct the search with help from a university health librarian. Search strategies were modified according to each database platform’s command language. The synonyms to indicate “community organising”, “community”, and “framework/theory/model” were used as search terms. For Google Scholar, we screened the first ten pages of results. The reference lists of all studies selected from those ten pages were also reviewed to identify additional relevant studies.

Studies were eligible for the review if they met the following criteria:

• A clear reference to community organising as an essential aspect of the initiative.
• The community organising effort related to health, wellbeing, or a social determinant of health.
• A theory, model, or framework of community organising was specifically mentioned as being used to inform the work.

Peer-reviewed, grey literature, conference papers, and empirical or conceptual studies were considered for inclusion in the review. No limits were placed on the date of publication, study design, or the language of the studies.

4. Study Selection

All identified studies were exported from the databases to the reference management software Zotero (version 5.0.96.3) and transferred to the review data management software, Covidence. Upon importing the studies to Covidence, duplicates were screened and removed. The screening was performed in two stages. First, study titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate by all authors (SK, JP, DC, HR, JH, JM, KB, LM, LB) and clearly irrelevant studies were excluded. Second, full-text versions of each of the studies were assessed in duplicate by authors (SK, JP, DC, HR, JH, JM, KB, LM, LB) and those not meeting the criteria were excluded. The reasons for exclusion of full review studies were documented (see Figure 1 ). Any discrepancies and conflicts were resolved by discussion between two authors (LB, DC). The remaining authors were also involved to meet consensus if further disagreements arose.

PRISMA flowchart detailing the article selection process for the scoping review.

5. Data Extraction

Data extraction from the included studies was conducted by all authors using the Covidence data extraction function. A purpose made template was developed and included details of first author’s name, year of publication, source of the article, title of the article, study design, and methods, geographic focus, sector, focus (context/behaviour/movement), and the community organising models, frameworks, and/or processes reported in the paper. Before data extraction commenced, all members of the research team involved in this step piloted the template, and amendments to the table were made according to their feedback.

For each paper, data were extracted independently by two researchers and the results were compared via Covidence. In case of disagreements, the consensus was met through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer.

6. Data Analysis

The data extracted from the included papers were narratively summarised and accompanied by descriptive tables.

7. Quality Appraisal

The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 18, was used to critically appraise the articles [ 1 ]. This tool was specifically designed for systematic mixed studies reviews. The tool helps to examine the methodological quality of qualitative research, quantitative descriptive research, and mixed methods using relevant quality questions out of five key criteria. For each selected full-text papers, researchers (SK, DC, JM, JH, HR, LM, KB) reviewed quality and suitability, including appropriateness of study aim, adequacy of the methodological approach, representativeness of target population, data analysis, presentation of findings, and authors’ discussion and conclusion. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

A total of 5044 studies were primarily identified in the search and 348 studies were automatically removed by Covidence as they were duplicates. The remaining 4696 studies were then screened by their titles and abstracts. After excluding 4546 non-relevant studies (unrelated to the review’s outcome and explanatory variables), 150 full text studies were reviewed. Of these, 38 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review.

The main reasons for exclusion were: the study scope not falling under health domain (n = 72), not related to community organising (n = 27), no framework, model, theory discussed (n = 8), wrong study design (n = 3), wrong intervention (n = 1), and wrong outcomes (n = 1). Of the 38 studies selected for final analysis, 33 were conducted in the United States [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], two in the United Kingdom [ 35 , 36 ] and one each in Canada [ 37 ], Japan [ 38 ] and South Africa [ 39 ]. The target populations of 11 of these studies were children and youth [ 3 , 6 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 40 ] followed by six studies, each with general [ 16 , 26 , 27 , 31 , 35 , 39 ] and marginalised population groups [ 2 , 5 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 ]. Other target population groups were older adults [ 9 , 10 , 37 , 38 , 39 ], members of community organising teams themselves [ 11 , 36 ], parents or families [ 4 , 7 ], at-risk or vulnerable populations [ 28 , 33 ], gender minorities [ 17 ], and health care professionals/institutions [ 24 ]. The studies included in the review were conducted between 1978 and 2021, more than half of the studies 63% (n = 17) were conducted in the last ten years [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 40 ], 21% (n = 8) were conducted in the last 20 years [ 6 , 9 , 12 , 17 , 22 , 26 , 35 , 37 ], and 15% (n = 6) were conducted prior to that [ 11 , 15 , 16 , 23 , 31 , 39 ] (See Table 1 ).

Sample characteristics, methods and outcomes of the reviewed studies on community organizing and health (n = 38).

* Intervention success defined as per the original study’s findings. + Not Available.

The most common study design was a case report or case study (n = 9) [ 3 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 25 , 28 , 30 , 33 , 34 ] and qualitative design (n = 9) [ 5 , 11 , 15 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 36 , 37 ], followed by seven studies conducted as published project implementation and evaluation [ 4 , 9 , 10 , 17 , 18 , 29 , 39 ]. Four studies were prospective or longitudinal in design [ 6 , 23 , 27 , 32 ], including cohort studies, and another four had a quasi-experimental design [ 7 , 35 , 38 , 40 ]. Three studies were community randomised trials [ 20 , 22 , 31 ]. The remaining studies had adopted participatory research [ 12 ] and a community listening exercise [ 2 ].

In most studies, community organising was undertaken by either a charity, a not-for-profit organisation, or a non-government or civil society organisation [ 3 , 5 , 7 , 13 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 36 , 37 ]. University researchers were the second most common group of community organisers [ 9 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 25 , 27 , 31 , 32 , 38 ], followed by government agencies [ 2 , 4 , 21 , 24 , 40 ]. A diverse group of organisers including community groups or leaders, health professionals, service managers, or a combination of several communities and/or institutional actors were involved in some studies [ 6 , 14 , 23 , 33 , 35 ]. In the remaining studies, it was not clearly stated who the community organisers were [ 11 , 12 , 22 , 30 , 39 ] (See Table 1 ).

The length of time required to undertake the preparatory work at the start of the action phase was reported by 19 studies only. Most studies took 24 months or more to start the action phase [ 3 , 15 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 38 ], while five took more than 12 months but less than 24 months to do so [ 16 , 27 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Three studies took 6–12 months [ 13 , 18 , 24 ], while two took between 1 and 6 months [ 21 , 33 ]. Only one study was found to have initiated the action phase within less than a month following the listening and organising process to initiate its community action [ 19 ].

8.1. Frameworks, Models, and Processes Adopted

The review identified 22 different frameworks, models, or processes adopted by the studies (see Table 2 ). A framework usually represents a structure, overview, system, or plan composed of descriptive categories and does not provide an explanation, rather it groups the empirical phenomena into a set of categories. A model, on the other hand, is descriptive and typically involves a deliberate simplification of a phenomenon. Finally, a process is the analytical representation of the program activities. There were 10 studies that explicitly reported the use of a community organising framework [ 5 , 6 , 9 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 ]. All studies reported their use of community organising steps, and these varied between four and 10 steps. For instance: Cheadle et al. (2009) utilised community organising in the promotion of physical activity among older adults from southeast Seattle in the US. This study identified and involved champions in partner organisations for support and resources [ 9 ]. Rask et al. (2015) utilised the community organising technique to assess provider engagement and its impact in addressing the root cause of preventable readmissions by identifying participant-defined barriers [ 24 ]. Bezboruah (2013) examined the community organising technique to promote accessible and affordable health care to a marginalised neighbourhood in a large and diverse community [ 5 ].

Core components of frameworks/model/process and details of selected studies (n = 38).

Similarly, Mckenzie et al. (2004) used community organising to create a community-wide cancer education/screening program [ 35 ]. The study selected local leaders based on their previous professions and contribution to the community in order to assess community needs, followed by the implementation and evaluation of the program [ 35 ]. Zanoni et al. (2011) employed community organising to address the epidemic of asthma and obesity among Latina/o children. They motivated their parents to create knowledge, take action, reflect on outcomes and have their voice heard in dominant-culture schools [ 34 ]. Santilli et al. (2016) were guided by community organising principles to mobilise community members and partners to develop and build community support for neighbourhood-driven intervention in chronic disease prevention [ 27 ]. A community organising approach to counter alcohol abuse through a community randomised trial was outlined by Wagenaar and colleagues [ 31 ]. Bosma et al. in 2005 also adopted a community organising model to prevent substance use and violence among young adolescents in school settings [ 6 ]. Wagoner et al. (2010) employed a practice-based community organising conceptual model using a grounded-theory approach [ 32 ].

Each of the above-mentioned studies conducted a needs assessment as a part of their community organising process. One-to-one networking with the community members and local organisations was the most followed approach for needs assessment. Some of these studies also hired community organisers to assist [ 9 , 27 ]. However, only two studies evaluated their achievements or goals at the end of the program [ 31 , 35 ], and only one had a sustainability strategy in place [ 24 ]. Community members were empowered to address the local issues of alcohol, tobacco and violence [ 6 ]. The logic behind emphasis on the community’s active role in the process was explained by Saxon et. al. [ 28 ], who stressed that participating in community organising tends to give community members more ownership over local issues and maintains power balance between the community members and community organisers.

8.1.1. Collective Impact Framework

Collective impact of some kind was employed as the model or framework of community organising, either on its own or as a part of multiple framework structure in at least four studies [ 18 , 22 , 23 , 26 ] (See Table 2 ). The Collective Impact Framework is a collaborative approach centred on the tenet that to create long-term change for complex social and health issues, organisations must coordinate their efforts around a common goal [ 41 ]. There are five core components of the Collective Impact Framework including a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and a backbone support organization [ 42 ].

In a study conducted by Poole and Colleagues in 1997, collective impact was set within the broader framework of the utility of action structures and was aimed to be a driver towards the attainment of national goals through a bottom-up approach in Oklahoma, US [ 23 ]. Salem et al. (2005) used the framework to increase the capacity of communities in Chicago, US to participate in public health decision making, promote new partnerships, make decision makers accessible to the communities, and to find a suitable role for the local public health department to support community-based health activities [ 26 ]. Hilgendorf et al. (2016) evaluated the lessons learned from a pilot obesity prevention approach by the Wisconsin Obesity Prevention Initiative for community action, which incorporated coalition as well as community organising efforts in two counties with the long-term goal of empowering community leaders to drive ongoing action [ 18 ]. Perry et al. (2000) represented the second phase of an early adolescent intervention against students’ alcohol use. This study promoted community action to increase community efficacy, integration and resilience to bring about positive changes in community norms [ 22 ].

These studies utilised a community-driven approach and actively involved, engaged or empowered community members, organisations and stakeholders in problem identification, development of solutions, planning and implementation of intervention(s). Community mobilisation activities were implemented and comprised the use of media campaigns and public events [ 22 ]. In addition, seeking support from community leaders in raising awareness of the problem and encouraging community members to take action were their key features. Building coalitions with the community members and sharing responsibilities with them to solve local problems were important power approaches used by Poole [ 23 ] and Salem et al. [ 26 ]. Furthermore, Salem argued that local needs are community owned and meeting them is not a sole responsibility of any organization.

8.1.2. Alinsky-Style Organising IAF Framework

Two studies adopted Alinksy-style organising as their framework of choice [ 17 , 29 ]. Subica et al. (2016) adopted the Alinsky-style community organising (also known as Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF style organising) framework to summarise the community organising initiatives of several grant recipients of projects targeting childhood obesity-causing structural inequities within 21 culturally/ethnically diverse communities through the creation of 72 environmental and policy solutions [ 29 ]. Prior to this in 2003, Hays et al. had employed the same model to build a strong, supportive young gay and bisexual men’s community through different outreach events and team performances where they could protect and support each other, promote having safer sex and help in HIV prevention efforts as a bigger goal through their Mpowerment project [ 17 ].

The Alinsky model begins with “community organising” and is based on a concept of separate public and private spheres [ 43 ]. In the Alinsky model, power and politics both occur in the public sphere, and Alinsky argued that poor communities could gain power through public sphere action, which involves taking public action such as protests and occupation to shift control from entities such as local government to the community [ 43 ]. The studies adopting IAF as their guiding framework [ 17 , 29 ] used a combination of community organising and other methods such as focus groups, interviews, and community meetings to engage community members in the research process. Feedback was gathered from community members on the acceptability and feasibility of their interventions. Outcomes focused on changes in both health behaviours and policy change. Aligned with the Alinsky approach, Hays et.al. [ 17 ] reported on shared power through the involvement of a core group who represent the various segments of the target community. This also signifies one way of maintaining the power balance between community organisers and community “organisee”.

8.1.3. Community-Based Participatory Research Framework

Three studies adopted community-based participatory research framework (CBPR) in their community organising effort [ 3 , 19 , 25 ]. The proponents of community-based participatory research (CBPR) claim that it benefits community participants, health care practitioners, and researchers alike [ 44 ]. They argue that CBPR creates bridges between scientists and communities through the use of shared knowledge and valuable experience [ 45 , 46 ]. Therefore, CBPR is a collaborative approach that emphasises the active involvement of community members in all facets of the research process [ 19 ]. All studies embracing CBPR [ 3 , 19 , 25 ] prioritised community ownership, active involvement of community members, and addressing potential biases in different ways. Following the CBPR framework, community ownership and active involvement were achieved through implementing community dialogue, community problem-solving, participatory action research and social justice approaches. Kang [ 19 ] and Bauermeister [ 3 ] highlighted the shared power achieved through collaboration with community and researchers while considering the geographical diversity. Similarly, Ross et al. [ 25 ] described the power of youth’s research and participation/action on health behaviour change to inspire key decision makers for developing new policies and ordinances.

8.1.4. Socio-Ecological Framework

Two studies that adopted the socio-ecological framework also used a community-based approach [ 10 , 33 ]. One of these two studies aimed to understand the structural issues that affected the creation of a community action and advocacy board (CAAB) and to identify strategies for overcoming those issues [ 33 ], while the other aimed to promote physical activity in older adults [ 10 ]. Community engagement and empowerment were central to both studies. Power was emphasised in both studies. For example: Weeks [ 33 ] recognised that members of the community were grassroots “experts” and “leaders” in key areas of HIV/STIs prevention, women’s health and empowerment, and community health needs. Cheadle [ 10 ] discussed the involvement of community in coalitions, thereby promoting the bottom-up approach.

A range of additional frameworks were applied as a part of community organising in the remaining studies. Coalition between different community partners, formative research, action planning and mobilizing the community members to solve the local needs by utilizing community resources, implementation and dissemination are major focus areas of these additional models or frameworks, including Rothman’s development model [ 16 ], innovative program planning frameworks [ 8 ], implementation science frameworks [ 4 ], community partnership frameworks [ 7 ], community need assessment methodology model [ 2 ], and communities mobilizing for change model [ 20 ]. Green care theory was one of the standalone theories that did not fit under one broad theme and it was used to describe connectedness to the natural environment by a collaborative approach [ 36 ].

The Mckenzie and Smeltzer community organisation model [ 37 ], Cottrell’s Community Competency framework [ 11 ], and the eight steps process [ 39 ] were three models that were bound by the commonality of using the eight step process. In this process, the initial steps were focused on community contacts and one-to-one relationships with individuals and groups to identify barriers and assets in the community. The intermediate steps facilitated the open meeting to identify the community needs and their solutions. The final steps, on the other hand, were focused on maintaining and sustaining the program.

Citizen health care model [ 12 ], Freire’s theory of adult education [ 15 ], and Community capacity framework [ 21 ] were other models with the common aim of emphasising the knowledge, wisdom, and energy of an individual to promote their full participation in healthcare as a coproducer rather than just a patient or consumer. They believed that professionals can serve as catalysts in fostering such citizen initiatives with program ideas and directions through the creation of community partnerships and coalitions. Therefore, they emphasised power between professionals and consumers by enhancing individual capacity to command/demand more control over their health.

Similarly, Tawtaw used a conceptual framework that combines organizing theory and horizontal participatory approaches for the community health improvement plan life cycle [ 30 ]. Fawcett et al. used three playbooks for implementing an organizational change model, where initial briefing were carried out with partners who then reviewed the recommendations and developed an action plan for implementation [ 14 ]. Haseda and colleagues [ 38 ] visualised and figured out community health needs by using a JAGES Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool and developed community diagnosis forms [ 38 ]. Furthermore, Haseda [ 38 ] and Fawcett [ 14 ] both discussed empowering the local health sector and engaging them through coalition.

8.2. Targeted Health Behaviour or Topics Used by Community Organising Initiatives

Non-specific health promotion, health education, or lifestyle modification were the primary objectives of community organising in most studies [ 2 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 19 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 36 , 39 ]. This was followed by substance use (alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs) and violence and associated behaviours [ 6 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 31 , 32 ]. Chronic disease management was the focus of four studies [ 13 , 21 , 29 , 35 ] including a cancer education/screening program in the UK, childhood obesity among low SES communities in the UK, asthma in Detroit, Michigan and obesity in the US. Health care access was the focus of another four studies [ 14 , 15 , 24 , 38 ], with one study focusing specifically on culturally appropriate healthcare access [ 14 ]. The other areas of specific focus were sexual/reproductive health [ 3 , 7 , 17 , 33 ], healthy eating [ 15 , 37 ], cancer prevention [ 35 ], gender discrimination [ 28 ], local environment factors [ 21 ], physical activity [ 9 ], social activities of older adults [ 38 ], assessment of community partnership [ 30 ], and coordination of health services [ 24 ]. However, it should be noted that many of these studies had overlapping focus areas especially relating to health promotion/healthy eating/healthy lifestyles. The outcomes of most initiatives were promising, with positive changes reported (at least in the short term) in health outcomes for the target populations in most studies (32/38) (see Table 1 ).

Quality Appraisal

Out of 38 included articles, 32 were assessed using MMAT criteria (see Table 3 ). Six articles were excluded from MMAT assessment following the first two screening questions. The methodological quality of the studies was mixed. The quality of the qualitative articles was high, with 13 out of 16 studies meeting the five MMAT criteria. The mixed methods study was also of high quality and met all five criteria. Only two quantitative articles (2/14) met all possible appraisal criteria. Low non-response bias risk and blinded outcome assessors to the intervention were the most frequent unmet criteria for quantitative studies.

Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Version 2018) for critically appraising quantitative (n = 14), qualitative (n = 16), and mixed methods (n = 2) study reviews.

Index Abbreviations: Y = Yes, N = No, U = Unclear, MMAT = Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) screening questions for all studies—QS1: Are the research questions clear?, QS2: Do the collected data allow to address the research questions? B. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for qualitative studies—Q1.1: Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research questions?, Q1.2: Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? Q1.3: Are the findings adequately derived from the data?, Q1.4: Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?, Q1.5: Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation? C. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for quantitative Randomised Controlled Trail—2.1. Is randomization appropriately performed? 2.2. Are the groups comparable at baseline? 2.3. Are there complete outcome data? 2.4. Are outcome assessors blinded to the intervention provided? 2.5 Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention? D. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for quantitative non-Randomised—3.1. Are the participants representative of the target population? 3.2. Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)? 3.3. Are there complete outcome data? 3.4. Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis? 3.5. During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended? E. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for quantitative descriptive studies—Q4.1: Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question?, Q4.2: Is the sample representative of the target population?, Q4.3: Are the measurements appropriate?, Q4.4: Is the risk of nonresponse bias low?, Q4.5: Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? F. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for mixed-method studies—Q5.1: Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?, Q5.2: Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?, Q5.3: Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?, Q5.4: Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?, Q5.5: Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?

9. Discussion

This review synthesised the literature on community organising initiatives that pursued advancements in health. The review aimed to identify the targeted health behaviour or topics that community organising initiatives have addressed as well as models, frameworks, and processes that have been used by those initiatives. Overall, the review found that community organising has been regularly utilised over several decades as a guiding mechanism for community-based health initiatives. Positive changes were reported in health outcomes for the target populations in most of these initiatives.

Despite the use of community organizing frameworks over several decades, there is still no single gold standard framework adopted. A wide variety of models, frameworks, or processes of community organising were applied in the included studies. The variation implies that no one specific model, framework or process seems to have predominance over others in implementing community organising as a vehicle of positive social change within the health domain. Some frameworks that were common between studies that reported positive outcomes were the community organising model [ 6 , 10 , 32 ], socio ecological model [ 9 ], Rothman’s locality development model [ 16 ], and community-based participatory research model [ 19 , 25 ]. Despite such a wide variation, some themes were prevalent across the reviewed studies, including (1) the creation of partnerships and coalitions, (2) community integration and resilience, (3) joint problem-solving, (4) bottom-up approach, (5) community ownership, (6) community empowerment and (7) capacity building. Therefore, regardless of which framework is used, health interventions or initiatives are likely to deliver positive outcomes if they are delivered in a coordinated manner by incorporating these core components. As a result, future research should focus on supporting these key components to be a more common part of community activities.

Most studies (33/38) included in the review were conducted in the United States. This strong adoption of community organising could be because community organising as a vehicle for change began earlier in the United States than in other countries, potentially in Philadelphia with the wages strike in 1786 [ 47 ]. Additionally, the dominant political ideology in the United States (e.g., desire for small governments and lower taxes etc.) along with a largely inequitable, predominantly user-funded healthcare system could be seen as further drivers for more community organising activity since it allows people to organise, unionise, and consolidate their power [ 48 , 49 ]. Countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, which can be considered comparable to the United States in many aspects such as language, culture, democratic election of government, etc., have also had a long history of labour unions, but these countries are more distinct from the United States due to their publicly funded healthcare systems (Medicare and National Health Services respectively). The health systems in these countries are known to be more equitable [ 50 , 51 ], thereby limiting the need for citizens and communities in these countries to organise for access to healthcare. Despite these factors, there are gaps which could be filled by more community-focused and community driven health initiatives or interventions. However, this review suggested that community organising as a vehicle of health initiatives or interventions has yet to pick up traction in countries outside of the United States. Therefore, it highlights the opportunity for the concept to be expanded in public health initiatives outside of the United States, learning from the experiences of the studies implemented there.

Most studies targeted a broad, general population, while some focused on specific population groups. Despite the heterogeneity in the selection of target population groups, there was consistency among most studies in terms of positive change reported in their targeted health outcomes. Such consistency in positive outcomes despite the variation among target population groups reinforces the argument that community organising has the potential to be an important vehicle for positive change [ 2 , 3 , 12 , 17 , 19 ]. This notion is important, particularly for the marginalised and disadvantaged communities who are more likely to be overlooked by existing mainstream health initiatives or interventions that are perhaps designed using a one-size-fits all approach [ 52 ]. Community organising provides an opportunity to listen to community voices and concerns, engage them deeply, work together with them to address those concerns, and create solutions to the community problems together with them, instead of adopting top-down approaches [ 52 ]. Authors have also referred to this bottom-up approach as a means of power-sharing with the communities to help them solve their own problems [ 53 ]. Power sharing has been recommended as an essential driving force and strategy behind other grassroots community initiatives [ 54 , 55 ]. However, when examining power issues, there are likely to be evaluation challenges. For example, how to measure shared power, Kang [ 27 ] and Bauermeister [ 3 ], or Ross et al. [ 25 ], power of youth’s research and participation/action on health behaviour. While there a range of frameworks identified in this review, they are applied to different contexts. Future research could examine the suitability of different frameworks for different community contexts, taking into consideration their unique issues and starting points.

The reviewed studies did not document long-term outcomes or health impacts. While most studies reviewed reported positive change in the health outcomes, we noted that these measures were typically collected over relatively short and focused project durations. Many studies did not discuss the long-term sustainability of positive impacts, particularly after the funding had been exhausted. Only 18/38 articles in the review mentioned prolonged action or sustainability of community organising efforts beyond their research period. Some of the major strategies employed to sustain the community organising actions beyond the funded period in these studies were: empowering the community leaders and educating community members to engage and maintain the community action; continuing ongoing meetings with stakeholders; and ensuring trust between them and the community organisers. Some articles also discussed influencing public policy change/government support as a strategy to sustain community organising initiatives beyond the life duration of a particular focused project [ 5 , 22 , 31 ]. Utilising “partnership brokers” such as local governments and non-governmental organisations has also been suggested in initiatives beyond the health sector [ 56 ] to ensure the sustainability of community-institution partnership through the establishment of a systems-based approach. Studies included in this review in terms of outcome selection can be categorised into four groups: (1). to identify issues (1/38); (2). description of program implementations (6/38); (3). evaluation of program implementations with lessons learnt and influencing factors (19/38); and (4). effect directly on health outcomes (12/38). However, among the 12 studies directly reporting on health outcomes, five discussed quantitative/statistical conclusions. These four categories show the outcomes with increasing correlation to the ultimate objective: to improve health. Quality of implementation and effect on community capacity is an intermediate outcome to the final health outcome. The inclusion of more direct health measurements would improve the ability to evaluate the impact of these initiatives. Future studies should aim to measure long-term impact from their initiative, not just the measurement of outcomes during the funded period.

10. Strengths and Limitations of the Review

This review brought together evidence on the use of community organising in the health domain and the adoption of several frameworks of community organising. However, the review did not systematically assess whether the studies adhered to the framework guidelines in a step-by-step manner. Therefore, the review should not be viewed as an assessment of their level of adherence to these frameworks. This could also be considered this review’s strength as it identified that there is not any standardisation/guideline for reporting such adherence. Another limitation of the study lies in the heterogeneity of topics and community groups, meaning that a rigorous meta-analysis was not possible. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity (of target population groups and frameworks) can also be considered a strength as it is suggestive that the approach can be used in many contexts and is therefore worthy of further consideration. Most studies included in the review also showed that the initiatives successfully improved the targeted health outcomes in the short term, which indicates the positive role of community organising in solving community problems with their active involvement. It needs to be acknowledged that it might also be reflective of selective publishing, where relatively less successful initiatives are not published and of a lack of follow-up studies to check whether these successes sustain over time in the absence of an active implementation team of community organisers/organisations. The assessment of publication bias and sustainability assessment was beyond the scope of this review.

11. Implications for Research

No guidelines exist to inform the development or reporting of tools to implement and evaluate community initiatives or interventions in a consistent way to enable comparison and conclusions to be drawn. Therefore, future studies could emphasise developing such implementation and evaluation guidelines to support the implementation and assessment of implementation fidelity and allow for comparability across initiatives. Furthermore, assessing the sustainability of community organising initiatives beyond the short-term project duration will also be helpful, since a lack of funding and active engagement from community organisers might mean that programs are discontinued, and any community benefits gained could cease or even regress.

12. Conclusions

This review showed that community organising is a promising approach to community-based health initiatives. Health initiatives with successful outcomes in recent decades include the widespread shift to a bottom-up approach towards including community members in organising efforts to address their identified needs through active participation in their community. There is opportunity for a more standardised approach of implementation and evaluation of these initiatives, including objective measures of success and long-term sustainability. Future research should explore whether long-term sustainability can be achieved by encouraging a more proactive public sector role or by fostering a public- and non-governmental sector partnership to promote community-driven health promotion efforts. Regardless of the approach, ensuring community trust and empowering local leaders should remain the cornerstone of all these initiatives.

Acknowledgments

We thank the health librarian staff at Griffith University for assisting throughout the data search and with access to electronic databases.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

S.K. conducted the preliminary database search, analysed, and interpreted data and took a lead role in writing the manuscript. J.P. conceptualised the study and J.P. and L.B. oversaw and supervised the study and contributed to manuscript development. S.K., L.B., D.C., H.R., J.H., J.M., K.B., L.M. and J.P. contributed to data screening and extraction. S.K., L.B., D.C., H.R., J.H., J.M., K.B., L.M. and J.P. critically reviewed and provided constructive feedback. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Aligning community-engaged research methods with diverse community organizing approaches.

1. Introduction

2. critical cer and grassroots community organizing, 3. roles for cer in community organizing, examples from the environmental health coalition (ehc), 4. aligning research methods with organizing approaches, 4.1. alinskyite, 4.2. freirean, 4.3. feminist, 4.4. community building and resilience-based organizing, 4.5. transformative, 4.6. examples from the environmental health coalition, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Alinsky, Saul D. 1971. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals . New York: Vintage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, Barbara L. 1997. Women scientists and feminist methodologies in Louisiana’s chemical corridor. Michigan Feminist Studies 13: 89–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anguelovski, Isabelle, Anna Livia Brand, Eric Chu, and Kian Goh. 2018. Urban planning, community (re)development, and environmental gentrification: Emerging challenges for green and equitable neighborhoods. In The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice . Edited by Ryan Holifield, Jayajit Chakraborty and Gordon Walker. New York: Routledge, pp. 449–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Balazs, Carolina L., and Rachel Morello-Frosch. 2013. The three Rs: How community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. Environmental Justice 6: 9–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Baptista, Ana, Martha Matsuoka, and Chad Raphael. 2024. Urban and regional planning. In Ground Truths: Community-Engaged Research for Environmental Justice . Edited by Chad Raphael and Martha Matsuoka. Oakland: University of California Press—Luminos. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bedoya, Roberto. 2012. The Politics of Belonging and Dis-Belonging. Arts in a Changing America. Available online: https://artsinachangingamerica.org/creative-placemaking-and-the-politics-of-belonging-and-dis-belonging/ (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• Blanusa, Mary, Stacey Chen, and Nathan Huttner. 2018. Grassroots Rising: Building Movements for Action. Available online: https://www.redstonestrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-10-04-Grassroots-Rising_shareable.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• Boal, Augusto. 1979. Theater of the Oppressed . London: Pluto Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boal, Augusto. 2005. Legislative Theatre: Using Performance to Make Politics . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bobo, Kim, Jackie Kendall, and Steve Max. 2010. Organizing for Social Change , 4th ed. Santa Ana: Forum Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bond, Becky, and Zack Exley. 2016. Rules for Revolutionaries: How Big Organizing can Change Everything . White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cable, Sherry, Tamara Mix, and Donald Hastings. 2005. Mission impossible? Environmental justice activists’ collaborations with professional environmentalists and with academics. In Power, Justice, and the Environment: A Critical Appraisal of the Environmental Justice Movement . Edited by David N. Pellow and Robert J. Brulle. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 55–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacari-Stone, Lisa, Minkler Meredith, Freudenberg Nicholas, and Themba Makani N. 2017. Community-based participatory research for health equity policy making. In Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: Advancing Social and Health Equity , 3rd ed. Edited by Nina Wallerstein, Bonnie Duran, John G. Oetzel and Meredith Minkler. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 277–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll, Stephanie Russo, Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, and Andrew Martinez. 2019. Indigenous data governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations. Data Science Journal 18: 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Chevalier, Jacques M., and Daniel J. Buckles. 2019. Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry , 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole, Luke W. 1992. Macho law brains, public citizens, and grassroots activists: Three models of environmental advocacy. Virginia Environmental Law Journal 14: 687–710. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole, Luke W., and Sheila R. Foster. 2001. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement . New York: NYU Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, Caren B., Chris L. Hawn, Lincoln R. Larson, Julia K. Parrish, Gillian Bowser, Darlene Cavalier, Robert R. Dunn, Mordechai (Muki) Haklay, Kaberi Kar Gupta, Na’Taki Osborne Jelks, and et al. 2021. Inclusion in citizen science: The conundrum of rebranding. Science 372: 1386–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DataCenter. 2015. An Introduction to Research Justice. Available online: http://www.datacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Intro_Research_Justice_Toolkit_FINAL1.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• Davies, Thom, and Alice Mah, eds. 2020. Toxic Truths: Environmental Justice and Citizen Science in A Post-Truth Age . Manchester: Manchester University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Della Porta, Donatella, and Mario Diani, eds. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements . Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Chiro, Giovanna. 2021. Mobilizing ‘intersectionality ‘in environmental justice research and action in a time of crisis. In Environmental Justice: Key Issues . Edited by Brendan Coolsaet. New York: Routledge, pp. 316–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon, Chris. 2014. Another Politics: Talking across Today’s Transformative Movements . Berkeley: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Environmental Health Coalition. 2004. The Science of Precaution: Barrio Logan residents use research and land use planning to prevent harm. Race, Poverty & the Environment 11: 53–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Environmental Health Coalition. 2005. Reclaiming Old Town National City: A Community Survey . National City: Environmental Health Coalition. [ Google Scholar ]
• Environmental Health Coalition. n.d. Frontera 2025: Analysis of Waste and Socio-Environmental Vulnerability in the Arroyo Alamar. Available online: https://www.environmentalhealth.org/campaigns/frontera-2025-analysis-of-waste-socio-environmental-vulnerability-in-the-arroyo-alamar/ (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• Fine, Michelle, and María Elena Torre. 2019. Critical participatory action research: A feminist project for validity and solidarity. Psychology of Women Quarterly 43: 433–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fisher, Robert, Yuseph Katiya, Christopher Reid, and Eric Shragge. 2013. We are radical: The Right to the City Alliance and the future of community organizing. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 40: 157–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freire, Paulo. 1970. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed . New York: Seabury Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freire, Paulo. 1982. Creating alternative research methods: Learning to do it by doing it. In Creating Knowledge: A Monopoly? Edited by Budd Hall, Arthur Gillette and Rajesh Tandon. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia, pp. 29–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frickel, Scott, Rebekah Torcasso, and Annika Anderson. 2015. The organization of expert activism: Shadow mobilization in two social movements. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 20: 305–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gaard, Greta. 2018. Feminism and environmental justice. In The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice . Edited by Ryan Holifield, Jayajit Chakraborty and Gordon Walker. New York: Routledge, pp. 74–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauderman, W. James, Edward Avol, Frank Gilliland, Hita Vora, Duncan Thomas, Kiros Berhane, Rob McConnell, Nino Kuenzli, Fred Lurmann, Edward Rappapor, and et al. 2004. The effect of air pollution on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age. New England Journal of Medicine 351: 1057–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Giancatarino, Anthony. 2018. Collaborating for Bold Possibilities: The Ecosystem of Networks Advancing a Just Transition. Available online: https://climatejusticealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Collaborating-for-Bold-Possibilities_FINAL_830_TO-PRINT_SPREAD.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• González, Erualdo Romero, Raul P. Lejano, Guadalupe Vidales, Ross F. Conner, Yuki Kidokoro, Bahram Fazeli, and Robert Cabrales. 2007. Participatory action research for environmental health: Encountering Freire in the urban barrio. Journal of Urban Affairs 29: 77–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gordon da Cruz, Cynthia. 2017. Critical community-engaged scholarship: Communities and universities striving for racial justice. Peabody Journal of Education 92: 363–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grosse, Corrie. 2019. Climate justice movement building: Values and cultures of creation in Santa Barbara, California. Social Sciences 8: 79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gutierrez, Lorraine M., and Edith A. Lewis. 2022. Education, participation, and capacity building in community organizing with women of color. In Community Organizing and Community Building for Health and Social Equity , 4th ed. Edited by Meredith Minkler and Patricia Wakimoto. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 205–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haklay, Muki, and Louise Francis. 2018. Participatory GIS and community-based citizen science for environmental justice action. In The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice . Edited by Ryan Holifield, Jayajit Chakraborty and Gordon Walker. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp. 297–308. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawkins, Robert L., and Katherine Maurer. 2010. Bonding, bridging and linking: How social capital operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social Work 40: 1777–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Holifield, Ryan, Jayajit Chakraborty, and Gordon Walker, eds. 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• ICPHR (International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research). 2013. Position Paper 1: What Is Participatory Health Research? Version: Mai 2013. Berlin: International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Illner, Peer. 2021. Disasters and Social Reproduction: Crisis Response between the State and Community . London: Pluto Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Israel, Barbara A., Eugenia Eng, Amy J. Schulz, and Edith A. Parker, eds. 2013. Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health , 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jerrett, Michael, Ketan Shankardass, Kiros Berhane, W. James Gauderman, Nino Künzli, Edward Avol, Frank Gilliland, Fred Lurmann, Jassy N. Molitor, John T. Molitor, and et al. 2008. Traffic-related air pollution and asthma onset in children: A prospective cohort study with individual exposure measurement. Environmental Health Perspectives 116: 1433–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• LeQuesne, Theo. 2019. Petro-hegemony and the matrix of resistance: What can Standing Rock’s water protectors teach us about organizing for climate justice in the United States? Environmental Sociology 5: 188–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lerner, Josh A. 2014. Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics . Cambridge: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macy, Joanna, and Chris Johnstone. 2012. Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We’re in Without Going Crazy . Novato: New World Library. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann, Eric. 2011. Playbook for Progressives: 16 Qualities of the Successful Organizer . Boston: Beacon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinson, Marty, and Celina Su. 2022. Contrasting Organizing Approaches: The ‘Alinsky Tradition’ and Freirean Organizing Approaches. In Community Organizing and Community Building for Health and Social Equity , 4th ed. Edited by Meredith Minkler and Patricia Wakimoto. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 59–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matsuoka, Martha. 2017. Democratic Development for Thriving Communities: Framing the Issues, Solutions, and Funding Strategies to Address Gentrification and Displacement. Available online: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nfg/pages/476/attachments/original/1501798462/Democratic_Development_Report.pdf?1501798462 (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• McKay, Steven, and Claudia Lopez, eds. 2022. New trends in community-engaged research: Co-producing knowledge for justice. Social Sciences , 11. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/special_issues/community_research_policy (accessed on 28 May 2023).
• McKnight, John L., John P. Kretzmann, and Lionel J. Beaulieu. 2022. Mapping community capacities. In Community Organizing and Community Building for Health and Social Equity , 4th ed. Edited by Meredith Minkler and Patricia Wakimoto. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 166–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Minkler, Meredith, and Patricia Wakimoto, eds. 2022. Community Organizing and Community Building for Health and Social Equity , 4th ed. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Minkler, Meredith, Analilia P. Garcia, Joy Williams, Tony LoPresti, and Jane Lilly. 2010. Sí se puede: Using participatory research to promote environmental justice in a Latino community in San Diego, California. Journal of Urban Health 87: 796–812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Minkler, Meredith, R. David Rebanal, Robin Pearce, and Maria Acosta. 2019. Growing equity and health equity in perilous times: Lessons from community organizers. Health Education & Behavior 46: 9S–18S. [ Google Scholar ]
• Movement Generation Justice and Ecology Project. n.d. From Banks and Tanks to Cooperation and Caring. Available online: https://movementgeneration.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/JT_booklet_English_SPREADs_web.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• Myers-Lipton, Scott. 2023. Change! A Student Guide to Social Action , 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Norsigian, Judy. 2011. Our Bodies, Ourselves . New York: Atria. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parachini, Larry, and Andrew Mott. 1997. Strengthening Community Voices in Policy Reform: Community-Based Monitoring, Learning and Action Strategies for an Era of Devolution and Change. Available online: http://communitylearningpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/STRENGTHENING-COMMUNITY-VOICES-final-version-1.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• Pastor, Manuel, Chris Benner, and Martha Matsuoka. 2009. This Could Be the Start of Something Big: How Social Movements for Regional Equity are Reshaping Metropolitan America . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pastor, Manuel, Jennifer Ito, and Rachel Rosner. 2011. Transactions Transformations Translations: Metrics that Matter for Building, Scaling, and Funding Social Movements . Los Angeles: USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peeples, Jennifer A., and Kevin M. DeLuca. 2006. The truth of the matter: Motherhood, community and environmental justice. Women’s Studies in Communication 29: 59–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perez, Alejandro Colsa, Bernadette Grafton, Paul Mohai, Rebecca Hardin, Katy Hintzen, and Sara Orvis. 2015. Evolution of the environmental justice movement: Activism, formalization and differentiation. Environmental Research Letters 10: 105002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prado, Carolina, Colectivo Salud y Justicia Ambiental, and Red de Ciudadanos para el Mejoramiento de las Comunidades. 2021. Border environmental justice PPGIS: Community-based mapping and public participation in Eastern Tijuana, México. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 1349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pulido, Laura. 2017. Conversations in environmental justice: An Interview with David Pellow. Capitalism Nature Socialism 28: 43–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community . New York: Simon and Schuster. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pyles, Loretta. 2021. Progressive Community Organizing: Transformative Practice in a Globalizing World , 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rainey, Shirley A., and Glenn S. Johnson. 2009. Grassroots activism: An exploration of women of color’s role in the environmental justice movement. Race, Gender & Class 16: 144–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael, Chad, and Martha Matsuoka. 2024. Ground Truths: Community-Engaged Research for Environmental Justice . Oakland: University of California Press—Luminos. [ Google Scholar ]
• RDAIIDSIG (Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group). 2019. CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. The Global Indigenous Data Alliance. Available online: https://www.gida-global.org/care (accessed on 29 May 2023).
• Rivera, Felix G., and John Erlich. 1998. Community Organizing in a Diverse Society . Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez, Iokiñe, and Mirna Liz Inturias. 2018. Conflict transformation in Indigenous peoples’ territories: Doing environmental justice with a ‘decolonial turn’. Development Studies Research 5: 90–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ross, Loretta, Elena Gutiérrez, Marlene Gerber, and Jael Silliman. 2016. Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organizing for Reproductive Justice , 2nd ed. Chicago: Haymarket Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scandrett, Eurig. 2007. Environmental justice in Scotland: Policy, pedagogy and praxis. Environmental Research Letters 2: 045002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schiffer, Eva. 2007. The Power Mapping Tool: A Method for the Empirical Research of Power Relations . Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlosberg, David. 1999. Networks and mobile arrangements: Organisational innovation in the U.S. environmental justice movement. Environmental Politics 8: 122–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sen, Rinku. 2003. Stir It Up: Lessons in Community Organizing and Advocacy . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silliman, Jael. 1997. Making the connections: Women’s health and environmental justice. Race, Gender & Class 5: 104–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skocpol, Theda. 2013. Naming the problem: What it will take to counter extremism and engage Americans in the fight against global warming. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Politics of America’s Fight Against Global Warming, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 14 February. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2021. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples , 3rd ed. London: Zed Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smock, Kristina. 2004. Democracy in Action: Community Organizing and Urban Change . New York: Columbia University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solis, Miriam, Martha Matsuoka, and Chad Raphael. 2024. Community economic development. In Ground Truths: Community-Engaged Research for Environmental Justice . Edited by Chad Raphael and Martha Matsuoka. Oakland: University of California Press—Luminos. [ Google Scholar ]
• SouthWest Organizing Project. 1990. Letter to Big Ten Environmental Groups. Available online: http://www.ejnet.org/ej/swop.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• Speer, Paul W., and Hahrie C. Han. 2018. Re-engaging social relationships and collective dimensions of organizing to revive democratic practice. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 6: 745–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Stall, Susan, and Randy Stoecker. 2005. Toward a gender analysis of community organizing models. In Community Organizing and Community Building for Health , 2nd ed. Edited by Meredith Minkler. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 196–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staples, Lee. 2016. Roots to Power: A Manual for Grassroots Organizing , 3rd ed. Santa Barbara: Praeger. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staudt, Kathleen, Guadalupe Márquez-Velarde, and Mosi Dane’el. 2013. Stories, science, and power in policy change: Environmental health, community-based research, and community organizing in a US-Mexico border colonia. Environmental Justice 6: 191–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stearney, Lynn M. 1994. Feminism, ecofeminism, and the maternal archetype: Motherhood as a feminine universal. Communication Quarterly 42: 145–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, John, and Juan Parras. 2008. Environmental justice and Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed: A unique community tool for outreach, communication, education and advocacy. Theory in Action 1: 20–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Szreter, Simon, and Michael Woolcock. 2004. Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology 33: 650–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Takvorian, Diane, Paula Forbis, Sonya Holmquist, Tony LoPresti, and Laura Benson. 2008. Community planning for power. Race, Poverty & the Environment 15: 76–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor, Dorceta E. 2015. Gender and racial diversity in environmental organizations: Uneven accomplishments and cause for concern. Environmental Justice 8: 165–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• UCDEHSCC and UMLEEDCC (University of California Davis Environmental Health Sciences Core Center and University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan Lifestage Environmental Exposure and Disease Core Center). 2018. Building Equitable Partnerships for Environmental Justice. Available online: https://environmentalhealth.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk2556/files/inline-files/building-equitable-partnerships-for-environmental-justice.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• USC PERE. 2018. California Health and Justice for All Power-Building Landscape: A Preliminary Assessment. Available online: https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/TCE_PLA_Memo2_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
• Wallerstein, Nina, Bonnie Duran, John G. Oetzel, and Meredith Minkler, eds. 2017. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: Advancing Social and Health Equity , 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walter, Cheryl L., and Cheryl A. Hyde. 2012. Community building practice: An expanded conceptual framework. In Community Organizing and Community Building for Health , 3rd ed. Edited by Meredith Minkler. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 78–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren, Roland L. 1963. The Community in America . Chicago: Rand McNally. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weil, Marie, Michael S. Reisch, and Mary L. Ohmer, eds. 2013. The Handbook of Community Practice . Los Angeles: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willow, Anna J. 2013. Doing sovereignty in Native North America: Anishinaabe counter-mapping and the struggle for land-based self-determination. Human Ecology 41: 871–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zimmerman, Kristen, Neelam Pathikonda, Brenda Salgado, and Taj James. 2010. Out of the Spiritual Closet: Organizers Transforming the Practice of Social Justice . Oakland: Movement Strategy Center. [ Google Scholar ]

Share and Cite

Raphael, C.; Matsuoka, M. Aligning Community-Engaged Research Methods with Diverse Community Organizing Approaches. Soc. Sci. 2023 , 12 , 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060343

Raphael C, Matsuoka M. Aligning Community-Engaged Research Methods with Diverse Community Organizing Approaches. Social Sciences . 2023; 12(6):343. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060343

Raphael, Chad, and Martha Matsuoka. 2023. "Aligning Community-Engaged Research Methods with Diverse Community Organizing Approaches" Social Sciences 12, no. 6: 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060343

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

24 Community-Based Research: Understanding the Principles, Practices, Challenges, and Rationale

Margaret R. Boyd Bridgewater State University Bridgewater, MA, USA

• Published: 01 July 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Community-based research challenges the traditional research paradigm by recognizing that complex social problems today must involve multiple stakeholders in the research process—not as subjects but as co-investigators and co-authors. It is an “orientation to inquiry” rather than a methodology and reflects a transdisciplinary paradigm by including academics from many different disciplines, community members, activists, and often students in all stages of the research process. Community-based research is relational research where all partners change and grow in a synergistic relationship as they work together and strategize to solve issues and problems that are defined by and meaningful to them. This chapter is an introduction to the historical roots and subdivisions within community-based research and discusses the core principles and skills useful when designing and working with community members in a collaborative, innovative, and transformative research partnership. The rationale for working within this research paradigm is discussed as well as the challenges researchers and practitioners face when conducting community-based research. As the scholarship and practice of this form of research has increased dramatically over the last twenty years, this chapter looks at both new and emerging issues as well as founding questions that continue to be debated in the contemporary discourse.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Community Organizing

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Community Development Follow Following
• Faith Based Organizations Follow Following
• Religion and Social Work Follow Following
• Non Profit Organizations Follow Following
• Organizational Dynamics Follow Following
• Social Work Follow Following
• Community Engagement & Participation Follow Following
• Social Work Education Follow Following
• Sociology of Religion Follow Following
• Social Movements Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Community Organizing for Indigenous People in the Philippines: A Proposed Approach

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• For correspondence: [email protected] [email protected]
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Cognizant of the special needs of indigenous people in the Philippines, the Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 was established to promote and protect their rights. Over the years, a number of community organizing efforts for the improvement of these communities were conducted by stakeholders from the private and public sectors. However, resistance has been reported due to poor understanding and integration of these indigenous populations’ varied cultures and traditions. This study aims to describe the predominant principles and frameworks used for community organizing among indigenous people. Specifically, it seeks to propose a community organizing approach that is culturally sensitive and appropriate for indigenous communities in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas in the Philippines. A systematic review was conducted on four databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, Google Scholar) by four independent researchers. Inclusion criteria involved studies about community organizing protocols in the Philippines, published in peer-reviewed journals from 2010-2020, and written in the English language. Assessment of the quality of included studies was done using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist, and narrative synthesis was employed to summarize and report the findings. Thirteen studies met our inclusion criteria out of a total of fifty-five articles searched. Based on the evidence, our proposed approach builds on Groundwork, Indigenous Capacity Building, Community Participation and Ownership, Mobilization, and Sustainability. We highlight the emphasis of harnessing indigenous knowledge and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation to involve them in all steps of the planning and decision-making processes. Furthermore, we distill tools and methodologies that could strengthen and precipitate successful community organizing endeavors.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Exempted for Review

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Data Availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary material.

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Subject Area

• Health Policy
• Addiction Medicine (349)
• Allergy and Immunology (671)
• Anesthesia (181)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2655)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
• Dermatology (224)
• Emergency Medicine (400)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (947)
• Epidemiology (12248)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (763)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4113)
• Geriatric Medicine (387)
• Health Economics (680)
• Health Informatics (2665)
• Health Policy (1005)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (987)
• Hematology (364)
• HIV/AIDS (853)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13705)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (799)
• Medical Education (399)
• Medical Ethics (109)
• Nephrology (439)
• Neurology (3897)
• Nursing (210)
• Nutrition (578)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (741)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (696)
• Oncology (2037)
• Ophthalmology (586)
• Orthopedics (241)
• Otolaryngology (306)
• Pain Medicine (250)
• Palliative Medicine (75)
• Pathology (473)
• Pediatrics (1116)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
• Primary Care Research (452)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3442)
• Public and Global Health (6538)
• Radiology and Imaging (1407)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (818)
• Respiratory Medicine (871)
• Rheumatology (411)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
• Sports Medicine (343)
• Surgery (451)
• Toxicology (53)
• Transplantation (185)
• Urology (166)