4.2 Article

Cultivating the power of partnerships in feminist participatory action research in women's health

期刊

NURSING INQUIRY
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 324-335

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2010.00506.x

关键词

community; feminist research; participatory action research; power relations; women's health

类别

资金

  1. Vancouver Foundation
  2. BC Women's Health Research Network
  3. BC Rural and Remote Health Research Network
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  5. Status of Women Canada, Coast Capital Savings
  6. Michael Smith Health Research Foundation
  7. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Feminist participatory action research integrates feminist theories and participatory action research methods, often with the explicit intention of building community-academic partnerships to create new forms of knowledge to inform women's health. Despite the current pro-partnership agenda in health research and policy settings, a lack of attention has been paid to how to cultivate effective partnerships given limited resources, competing agendas, and inherent power differences. Based on our 10+ years individually and collectively conducting women's health and feminist participatory action research, we suggest that it is imperative to intentionally develop power-with strategies in order to avoid replicating the power imbalances that such projects seek to redress. By drawing on examples from three of our recent feminist participatory action projects we reflect on some of the tensions and complexities of attempting to cultivate power-with research partnerships. We then offer skills and resources needed by academic researchers to effectively harness the collective resources, agendas, and knowledge that each partner brings to the table. We suggest that investing in the process of cultivating power-with research partnerships ultimately improves our collective ability to understand and address women's health issues.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据