Cited by 43Community Health and DevelopmentQualitative Research Methods and EthicsParticipatory Visual Research Methods

A framework for entry: PAR values and engagement strategies in community research

Open access
Ochocka, Joanna, Moorlag, Elin, Janzen, Rich·2010·Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement

Abstract

The purpose of this article is twofold: to explore the entry process in community-based research when researching sensitive topics; and to suggest a framework for entry that utilises the values of participatory action research (PAR). The article draws on a collaborative community-university research study that took place in the Waterloo and Toronto regions of Ontario, Canada, from 2005–2010. The article emphasises that community entry is not only about recruitment strategies for research participants or research access to community but it is also concerned with the ongoing engagement with communities during various stages of the research study. The indicator of success is a well established and trusted community-researcher relationship. This article first examines this broader understanding of entry, then looks at how community research entry can be shaped by an illustrative framework, or guide, that uses a combination of participatory action research (PAR) values and engagement strategies. Key words: research entry, community engagement, participatory action research, mental health and cultural diversity

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5130/ijcre.v3i0.1328

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The literature confirms there is much debate about which stage of the research process is most appropriate for end-user involvement.

    “the literature confirms that there is much debate about which stage of the research process is most appropriate for end-user involvement [34, 35].”

    From Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design (2016) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Abstract and Engagement Stage passages describe ways to involve community members at different stages. The Entry Stages Strategies passage discusses practical tensions in doing so, but none of these passages reports a literature debate about which stage is most appropriate. Searches for that debate and for when community members should be involved found no such discussion in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Chamberlin, J 1997, 'A working definition of empowerment', Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 43-46.
  2. Ochocka, J 2007, 'Working with diverse communities towards social change: A community university partnership in Canada using a participatory action research approach', in A Bokszczanin (ed.), Social change in solidarity: Community psychology perspectives and approaches, University of Opole Press, Opole, Poland, pp. 76-83.
  3. Stringer, E 2007, Action research, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ochocka, J., Moorlag, E., & Janzen, R.
Affiliations
Centre for Community Based Research (CA)
Venue
Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement
Published
2010-11-25
Volume
3
Pages
1-19
ISSN
1836-3393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057471842
Cited by
43
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gateways International Journal of Community Research and Engagement (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
Keywords
community participation, participatory action research, sensitive topics, engagement strategies, mental health, cultural diversity, research recruitment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review