Trust in Community­ Academic Partnerships

Trust has been recognized as crucial to patient/provider, business, and romantic rela­tionships where interpersonal determinants of trust have been investigated (Anderson & Dedrick, 1990; Hall et al., 2002; Kao, Green, Zaslavsky, Koplan, & Cleary, 1998; Parsons, 1951; Zheng, Hall, Dugan, Kidd, & Levine, 2002).

Trust Definitions and Definition Components. There are several definitions of trust in the social science literature, includ­ing intuitive confidence, a sense of comfort, and expectations that moral social order will persist (Barber, 1983); calculated decisions to cooperate (Gambetta, 1998); and a set of expectations resulting in reliable interper­sonal (Rotter, 1980), collaborative (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Zucker, 1986), and professional (Johns, 1996; Mechanic & Schlesinger, 1996) performance with the best interest of the other in mind. Ring and Van de Ven (1994) saw trust as satisfaction with fairness. These definitions focus on expecta­tions (reliability, moral order, and fairness, best interest, comfort, and cooperation) of the person who is trusting. Barber (1983) defines expectations as “the meanings actors attribute to themselves and others as they make choices about which actions and reactions are ratio­nally effective and emotionally and morally appropriate” (p. 9). In other words, expecta­tion itself is an individual choice of action and reaction with a moral outcome, where moral­ity is “the effort to guide one’s conduct by rea­son, while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by one’s conduct” (Rachels, 1986, p.

A more dynamic definition of trust comes from Boon and Holmes (1991). They claim that trust is “a state involving confident posi­tive expectations about another’s motives with respect to oneself in situations entailing risk” (p. 194). This suggests trust as multidimen­sional, highlighting interdependence and inter­play between the expectations of the person who is trusting, as well as his or her disposi­tion or propensity to trust, the motives of the individual being trusted, and the situational parameters, including risk. Barber (1983) pos­ited that trust is not generalizable—it is subject to the situational context. It is also important to understand that “state” of trust is not static but dynamic, changing and adapting to new information. To date, trust research has been limited to measurement at one point in time, despite the knowledge that trust is situational and time dependent (Webber, 2008).

In community-academic partnerships, the notion and measurement of trust as multidi­mensional can quickly become overwhelming, as multiple diverse partners are involved. Each partner has his or her own disposition, expec­tations of the partnership, and perceptions of risk and vulnerability. Risk and vulnerability are sources of conflict, and attention to these issues is critical to understanding barriers to trust development. When achieved, trust minimizes fears of exploitation and feelings of vulnerability, but developing trust takes time.

Trust is a dialogic activity developed through iteration, yet at the same time, dia­logue is a tensional practice, requiring partici­pants to negotiate attitudes and actions during communication (Stewart & Zediker, 2000). Deutsch (1958) argued, “Risk-taking and trusting behavior are...

In community-academic research partner­ships, risk exists for both community and academics. For communities, a major concern is a risk of history repeating itself. Many com­munities of color or other disenfranchised groups have faced histories of discrimina­tion, from attempts at assimilation or even genocide to less severe, often inadvertent, but still harmful discriminatory treatment, which produces poor educational or health out­comes (Jones, 2001; Krieger, 2005; Marmot & Wilkinson, 2006). These have been played out through federal policies and interaction with dominant society institutions, including interactions with the institution of research. Examples of unethical and negligent research are abundant within the history of communi­ties of color and underrepresented populations (Bommersbach, 2008 ; Burhansstipanov, Bemis, & Petereit, 2008; Christopher, 2005; S. B. Thomas & Quinn, 2000; Walters, Beltran, Huh, & Evans-Campbell, 2011; among oth­ers). The span of unethical and negligent research include outside researchers enter­ing communities, collecting data, and leav­ing without direct benefit to communities. Community-engaged researchers refer to this as “helicopter” or “drive-by” research (Greene-Moton, Palermo, Flicker, & Travers, 2006). It has also been the case where data have been returned to the community without explanation of the findings or how to use the information.

(1) reported a high degree of inbreeding, claiming an explanation of higher susceptibil­ity of disease (Markow & Martin, 1993) and

(2) suggested tribal ancestry via the frozen Bering Sea (Karafet et al., 1997), which con­tradicts traditional origination stories. Other examples include using samples for unauthor­ized investigations (Bommersbach, 2008), arti­ficial inoculation, sterilization, and serology testing (Cook & Jackson, 2012).

Less severe risks to community partici­pants include disruption to reputation and accountability of the community at large. When a community member vouches for an outsider, for example, the member puts his or her reputation at risk, and if the outsider does not perform as expected, then the com­munity member is held accountable. Also, the research time frame must account for and be respectful of community processes like community research approvals (e.g., tribal research review boards), as well as internal community organization grant approvals and signatures. Postponements and interruptions to these processes create tension and stress for both the community and academic parties. In other words, community organizations have time frames for approval processes just like universities (even if these are not formal insti­tutional review boards). If these processes are not adhered to, then the organization becomes stressed, causing tensions within the orga­nization and between community-academic partnerships. These tension-causing situations from the community perspective are underrep­resented in the literature.

Similarly, academic partners face specific risks when initiating a research partnership. Some of the risks are the “flip side” of com­munity risks.

Furthermore, academics risk not being accepted by community partners, yet the very nature of community-academic relation­ships implies boundaries—“us” and “them.” Tensions may arise if the attempt to create inclusion or acceptance within a partnership

is made. For instance, the IO teams in the opening scenario were members of an indig­enous community with a preferred language other than English. At times, the conversation would change from English into the preferred language. Inquiry from the academic team members about what was said was an inclu­sion attempt and a source of conflict. When facing this risk, it is important to keep the relationship parameters in mind. Relationship parameters are the frame of the relation­ship. Trust and conflict within community­academic partnerships is bounded to the situational or relationship parameters in which the partnership was brought together.

Types of Trust. Situations contain context­specific variables and conditions that can foster collaboration and the opportunity to trust. At this moment, if you as the reader of this chap­ter were asked if you trusted the authors, we expect that you would answer, “It depends,” and you are right—it depends on the situation. Hardin (1993) exemplified the necessity of accounting for the situation when he stated, “Only a small child, a lover, Abraham speak­ing to God, or a rabid follower of a charis­matic leader might be able to say ‘I trust you’ without implicit modifier” (pp. 506-507). In community-academic research partnerships, context-specific variables include the severity or stigmatizing nature of the health issue, his­tory, and relationship parameters.

The health issue may be severe in its preva­lence, but it can also be severe based on its stigma, for example, mental health diagnoses, drug use, or domestic violence. In addition, the historical context of research within a commu­nity will shape the amount of participation, trust, and resistance a community puts forth. Boon and Holmes (1991) argued that the his­tory of previous relationships is fundamental to behavioral expectations of the other party. Therefore, if a community has had less favor­able experience with researchers or with research methods previously used, the less likely the community will engage in a research partnership or the more time it will take to begin the relationship.

Several types of trust have been suggested in the literature. Although not explicit, these are situational or relationship parameters. A few are directly applicable to community­academic relationships. Swift trust is a type of trust that needs to form very quickly for progress to be made (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996). Swift trust is time, task, and goal dependent and is driven more by contex­tual cues than by personalities or interpersonal relations. Similarly, technically competent trust (Barber, 1983) or presumptive/role-based trust (Webb, 1996) is based on the expectation of competent role performance. Competent performance involves expert knowledge and/ or technical capacity. To illustrate, imagine a CBO responding to a funding announcement. The grant announcement requires an evalua­tion plan to be submitted but the CBO does not have the experience, so they contact an academic to develop the plan. A relationship between the academic and the CBO did not previously exist. Trust, based on task comple­tion and competence among partners, must develop quickly for progress to be made and deadlines met. However, this does not mean that the relationship will continue. Trust based on role and task performance can be quite fragile and produce failures in cooperation and coordination.

Co-alliance trust is the result when organizations make equal contributions of resources, competencies, and knowledge for specific projects and time frames (Panteli & Sockalingam, 2005). This type of trust sug­gests equal commitment by all parties. As previously mentioned the issue of governance, decision making, and resource allocation in community-academic relationships is a cause of conflict and not readily addressed. However, examples of equal contributions in terms of knowledge and competencies are plentiful. Therefore, trust based on equal resources is plausible. S. P. Shapiro (1987) and Sitkin and Roth (1993) among others conceptualized a type of trust based on formal organizational and institutional arrangements, such as legal agreements, formal rules, and memoranda of understanding. Formal agreements are thought to augment or remedy mistrust by articulating written roles and responsibilities, expectations of partner organizations, deci­sion-making processes as well as project gov­ernance. Co-alliance trust and those based on formal agreements together could form a more sustainable partnership. Situations requiring quick decisions about trust with­out the ability to weigh the risks might be more prone to conflict than relationships that grow together and evolve shared goals and values.

Relational trust is one such trust type. Developed by Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998), relational trust develops over time and through repeated interactions. Repeated interactions provide evidence of reli­ability and dependability of partners and gives rise to positive expectations. Interdependence between the parties increases over time as new opportunities and initiatives are pursued. As its name implies, personal affective relation­ships begin to form between partners. As with any trust type, a dynamic is the poten­tial for growth or deterioration. In relational trust, there is more to lose compared with swift, role-based, agreement-based, or equal resources-based relationships. This gener­ates the question: What does trust look like before or after these trust types: swift trust, role-based trust, agreement-based trust, equal resources-based trust, or relational trust? Can swift trust develop into agreement or rela­tional trust?

This section has identified definitions and types of trust as a way to think about potential conflict and conflict resolution in community­academic partnerships. Conflict is inherent within community-academic partnerships; therefore, knowing conflict sources and how to manage conflict will help develop trust. Even situations where there is no apparent conflict or where there seems to be neutral trust, an awareness of the context, both cur­rent and historical, can lead to better under­standing of conflict sources and to heightened readiness for managing the inevitable conflicts that will arise. Negotiation of trust involves negotiation of risk and by necessity that involves conflict, but how is trust developed? In an attempt to shed light on trust develop­ment, the following section will review inter­personal and organizational relationship trust development models identifying similarities between them as well as their applicability to understanding trust development in commu­nity-academic relationships.