Many localities have recently started to invest in collecting and using data to provide public services. The broad movement toward data-driven policy in municipalities across the country is a positive step toward addressing inequalities through well-informed policy decisions. While we applaud the wider use of data by governments, funding agents, and other stakeholders to inform important policy decisions, we also believe it is important to evaluate whether this movement has led to increased agency for communities in the data collection process. Data can be a powerful resource for communities to both push for resources and policy reforms that can help improve their overall well-being and to address challenges they are facing. However, data can define and redefine narratives for marginalized communities, often in ways that limit their agency and policymaking leadership. There are many ways of creating knowledge, and in our view, enabling community leadership elevates important community-based experiences and data.
Our team at the Race, Prosperity, and Inclusion Initiative (RPII) at Brookings conducted a research project aimed at tackling this fundamental research question: What are the conditions under which communities can be in greater control of research and data governance more generally so that they can advance their own public policy or programmatic agendas? Our work over the past year included literature reviews, a landscape analysis, stakeholder interviews, several roundtables, and the development of case studies. This blog post summarizes some of the main findings from our research that we hope can help highlight how communities can have greater power over the data collection and management process. In short, our team concluded that it is possible to transform research models and ecosystems so that communities have greater control over research agendas and data governance issues that have a direct impact on their well-being.
Main findings from our research
Achieving a 50-50 balance of power with communities is still aspirational
Our background research identified that there are a large and growing number of conceptual models, frameworks, and approaches that all have advanced the use of community–engaged data over the past decade. However, our team was not able to identify any models where communities have a true partnership with either researchers or funding agents. Each of our discussions with stakeholders, experts, and community leaders included a request for any models or partnerships that they may be aware of that have a true balance of power and responsibilities. Although this effort led to some insightful case studies we conducted to exemplify specific action steps that some organizations have already taken, we were not able to collectively identify any such model or example.
Steps that if taken can shift the balance of power to communities
Our work up to this point suggests that there is room for growth in this area to achieve a true balance in equitable decision-making authority.
Below are some of the limitations of existing models that if addressed could lead to more balanced partnerships between the research and funding communities and the various community partners they intend to serve with their work.
- Communities are interested in having more influence on the early stages of the research processes so they can help to identify existing problems and develop policy and community-level interventions that address them. However, as it stands now, communities have little influence over the agenda-setting stage of the research process. Unfortunately, many academic institutions and funding agents have their own research questions and priorities that are often determined separately from communities and, therefore, lack the needed context that could better translate data into policies to address the challenges that communities experience. In most cases, a call for a proposal set by funding agencies (both governments and private foundations) identifies the range of social problems that the research intends to fund. Therefore, even if aggressive action is taken to include community partners in the research process, this does not occur until the decision of what challenges to address has already been made. Communities know what the most glaring challenges are in their neighborhoods and should have the opportunity to provide input on the prioritization of those issues before calls for proposals go out. While it requires a significant departure from the current norm for soliciting research, we believe that if funding entities push to require applicants to provide community–engaged evidence that the work they intend to conduct addresses a problem that has been identified by the community, this could be an important first step in a better direction. Further, to better help set the agenda for their research priorities prior to making funding decisions, funding agents can also commission community-engaged research that identifies the most pressing challenges communities in their portfolios are facing.
- Community organizations should be provided with more direct control of budget decisions regarding the allocation of funding. Power in relationships between researchers and communities is often held by the entity who has control and oversight of the budget in a project. Although providing community partners with this power will require greater investment in the human capital of community–based organizations (CBOs), shifting the control over budget decisions toward these groups will have a huge and positive impact on community agency over data management.
- Descriptive representation matters, so advancing opportunities for researchers and communications experts who are from the diverse communities that the research is aimed at is important. By creating a database of data champions across the country who are trained and have experience conducting sound and proven community-led research, we can expand the number of researchers and communications experts who are tapped to respond to calls for proposals. Furthermore, our work has identified some great examples of community–led advocacy organizations who have worked with academic institutions to train members of the community in research and data collection, including, in some cases, helping community members obtain formal credentials as researchers. These efforts, if scaled up, can lead to more CBOs who have the in-house capacity to collect their own data without the support of academic researchers.
- Ultimately trust may be the most critical factor in successful partnerships between communities, researchers, and funding agencies. Trust, however, takes time and effort to develop and sustain. Unfortunately, we have learned that the short timelines associated with most funding models do not support the deep levels of trust-building needed between researchers and the community in participatory grassroots work. Creating longer runways and timelines for community-based research to be completed will help address this issue.
We believe that addressing these opportunities in the existing frameworks and models associated with community-engaged research will help to eliminate barriers to improved social, economic, education, and health outcomes. The data also allows communities to hold policymakers and leaders accountable. Collective research and accountability have the potential to transform communities and demonstrate the benefit of sound approaches that, when too far removed from communities, often yield minimal results.
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).
Commentary
More action is required for communities to be equal partners in data governance
January 23, 2025