This week’s readings focused, more or less, on Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) and local research in general. In “Governing through community allegiance: a qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory research”, Guta describes Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) as an up-and-coming, alternative method of research. The process directly involves community members at all stages of the research. This method has been proven to be beneficial because it empowers community member participants, which increases the capacity and quality of the data. I’m not an expert, but that makes total sense to me; by involving the community in a study about the community, the results are going to be more accurate and valuable. Like Jenike and Silka, Guta describes an example qualitative study that tests the assumptions and hypotheses made about CBPR. In this comparative study, researchers compare the responses of specific peer researchers on issues such as the experience of homelessness, living with HIV, being an immigrant or refugee, identifying as transgender, and of having a mental illness to the responses of research members that responded in separate groups.
“Come take a walk with me: The ‘‘Go-Along’’ interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being” by Carpiano, on the other hand, doesn’t focus on CBPR as much as the other readings for this week. Instead his piece serves as an introduction to the ‘‘go-along’’ qualitative interview process for studying health issues in a community-based context. He begins by describing the purpose and different types of “go-alongs”. He also focuses on the advantages of the interview process and why this method is beneficial compared to others. He then discusses the strengths and limitations of the method as well as other study approaches that work well in accordance with the “go-along” interview process.