Conflict in Community Academic Partnerships
Disruptive yet valuable to communityacademic partnerships, conflict generates change and growth—it can result in a better understanding of self and other (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).
Conflict is “the perceived and/or actual incompatibility of values, expectations, processes, or outcomes between two or more parties over substantive and/or relational issues” (Ting-Toomey, 1994, p. 360). Pondy (1992) suggested that conflict is necessary for organizations to survive and evolve. Furthermore, he suggested that conflict in organizations is inevitable due to inherent differences in perceptions, culture, and goals of individual organization members. Similarly, researchers have suggested that coalitions have better outcomes when membership treats conflict as inherent rather than a deviation from business as usual (Weiner et al., 2002). Although potentially beneficial, conflict can also disrupt partnerships by fostering member turnover, stalling progress, or ultimately ending partnerships. There are a number of conflict sources that can be catalogued into micro- and macrolevels. In this context, microsources of conflict are those that occur within the partnership, between community partners and academic partners; whereas larger macrosocietal sources affect the partnership from the outside.Microsources. In community-academic partnerships, issues of conflict can arise from partner biases, differing values or priorities, and differences in personalities, cultures, and communication styles. Partnership cooperation is susceptible to conflict generated by partner biases of both community and academic partners. For example, researchers may project a view that community members’ knowledge and expertise is less important or valuable. In the opening scenario, the academics’ knowledge of research methods and value placed on an evidence-based curriculum outweighed community knowledge and “on-the-job” expertise at the beginning of the partnership.
Community members, on the other hand, unaccustomed to research processes may become frustrated by the long process and come to believe that academics are not committed to action and are fueled by their own self-interests (Owens et al., 2011).A major challenge for maintaining successful community-academic partnerships is gaining convergence of values and priorities. Individuals from different organizations have different perspectives on time, risk, and decision making (Weiner, Alexander, & Zuckerman, 2000), as well as different views on the way research should be conducted. The traditional model of research where the principal investigator is the sole proprietor of knowledge does not provide a place for other forms of leadership or knowledge that are critical to meeting needs and establishing a successful community-academic partnership (Freeman, Brugge, Bennett-Bradley, Levy, & Carrasco, 2006). Creating space for alternative leadership promotes collaboration and can foster a diverse team of members with varied expertise, strengths, and assets. Chene et al. (2005) recommended a departure from conformity and question normative models when working in collaboration with community. Freeman and colleagues (2006) align with this recommendation stating, “Researchers should include communities in formulating research agendas, questions, and priorities and should take their findings back to the communities for critical appraisal and practical applications.” Input from all partnership members is necessary to create shared values; however, priorities may still conflict.
Community partners often have specific interests related to how the outcome of research will benefit community. For example, project data are essential for framing policy issues and raising policymakers’ awareness to change unhealthy conditions or demand necessary services in health care, education, and economic opportunities (Minkler, 2004, 2010; Patel & Hampton, 2011). However, it takes time to develop reports for public consumption.
Although academics may understand the need to educate policymakers about project outcomes and have ethical obligations toward community, their interests may be counterbalanced by the desire to first contribute to science through peer-reviewed publication and career advancement (Hull, 1988).In addition to lack of congruence in priorities, differences in culture and communication styles are prominent conflict triggers. In academia, communication patterns are based on a culture of competition and critique (Goodall, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c), and associated behaviors such as interrupting and contradicting are often difficult for nonacademics within partnerships. Pondy (1967) asserted that conflict relationships are instigated by a sequence of interlocking conflict episodes. To illustrate Pondy’s assertion, imagine a partnership meeting where an academic partner continuously interrupts or talks over other partnership members. Initially, the interrupted partner will excuse this behavior as a rare event, but as the behavior continues, one of two things may happen: (1) Either the partner withdraws and does not participate in the meeting or (2) The partner becomes assertive, talks louder, and begins interrupting the academic. Both scenarios are examples of interlocking conflict episodes and show that culture and communication styles contribute to conflict. These are a few examples, not a comprehensive list, of microsources of conflict. These microlevel sources can usher in larger social issues. In the next section, we discuss macrolevel conflict influences.
Macrosources. Three larger social issues that can contribute to conflict within partnerships are (1) issues of power, (2) resource allocation, and (3) traditional research methods. Power, as Collins (2000) articulates, “defies simple explanation” (p. 274). Power, she continues, “is the intangible entity that circulates within a particular matrix of domination and to which individuals stand in varying relationships” (p.
274). Foucault (1980) differentiated between power that represses and power that produces. Repressive power structures operate by directly controlling opportunities, such as restricting access to education, employment, or living situations, among others. Mainstream institutions, such as research and funding institutions, exercise productive power, to create and reproduce symbols, academic discourse, and hierarchies of structural power that exclude others and allow repressive power to continue. Our society locates power in knowledge—in particular, knowledge of science. In community-academic partnerships, academics have research knowledge and the power of privilege that comes with their academic position. Community members often do not have advanced degrees or professor positions. Therefore, by societal rules and norms, within these partnerships, academics have more power than community, and it is exerted in the control of the research process and project direction. Academics and other professionals also exert power through their use of language, both in terms of English versus a non-English or indigenous language and also in terms of academic jargon (i.e., “evidence based,” “p value,” “social and health disparities,” and use of acronyms NIH instead of National Institutes of Health, etc.). However, as Foucault (1980) has noted, power is not monolithic and is expressed in a web of changing relations, enabling communities to locate their own power by questioning the skills and expertise of academics (Wallerstein, 1999). Scott (1990) suggested that people with less power express their resistance in hidden and public discourse to reclaim their power. In the opening scenario, academics asserted power by controlling the project’s direction, identifying the curriculum and training, as well as establishing the education protocol. By insisting on an “evidence-based” curriculum, power was asserted through academic jargon and scientific expertise. The IO teams, however, located their power in resisting the implementation of the curriculum and, ultimately, forced a reexamination of the research plan.Inequities in resources are related to power dynamics. As previously mentioned, community-academic partnerships rely on outside funding. These resources are often grant awards from federal, state, or nonprofit foundations. Although community-based organizations (CBOs) are eligible to apply for funding from these entities, an effective grant writer is someone who has scientific knowledge and has the ability to use scientific jargon. Anecdotally, and from experience, the academic partner most often is the grant writer, with the university being the entity applying for the funds and the community partner(s) written into the application as a subaward. Therefore, the academics have the control and power to distribute resources that may provoke conflict in their distribution and sharing with communities. Research is an economic opportunity for communities—it creates or sustains jobs. Often, community members are allocated the responsibility of participant recruitment and data collection, two of the most time-intensive aspects of the research process. It is expected, therefore, that the overall budget is shared appropriately; however, the funding agency may see equitable sharing as a weakness in the application. Resource sharing is a delicate matter that requires extensive discourse about the culture of funding agencies and its relationship to power and knowledge.
Similarly, disagreements between community and academic partners may also occur when choosing the methods used to answer research questions. Community partners may be interested in using methods that maximize community benefits, but these methods may compromise the science (Resnik & Kennedy, 2010). For example, Freeman and colleagues (2006) experienced conflict when proposing an experimental design using a control group. Their research partners were concerned that this design would deprive the control families of research benefits. Through negotiation, in the end, the research design was changed to a longitudinal study with a single intervention and dense data collection at several time points to maintain research integrity. The academics had to maintain research integrity not only to get grant funding but also to legitimize their research to peers in publications. These macrosources are interrelated and difficult to negotiate because of participant diversity. In the reality of difference, participatory processes in research are an approach to conflict mitigation by fostering open communication and trust among and between partners.