Building Institutional Capacity for Engaged Research: Proceedings of a Workshop (2025)
Chapter: 6 Valuing Diverse Forms of Expertise
6
Valuing Diverse Forms of Expertise
Byron White, planning committee member and associate provost for urban research and community engagement at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Charlotte, began his remarks by noting that much of the distribution of power and shared authority is tied to the perception of where expertise resides, and the common belief is that academic institutions hold the expertise. While many engaged researchers have moved beyond the idea of viewing communities as simply research subjects, communities are still commonly viewed through a deficit lens—as needy and reliant on institutional expertise, he stated. True co-production requires a perspective shift that values community skills and expertise on par with those of researchers, worthy of comparable levels of power and authority. He illustrated this shift by describing a project at Cleveland State University designed to address the high rate of diabetes in a predominantly Black neighborhood. While the traditional, deficit-oriented approach viewed the community as in need of training in diabetes care, recognizing residents’ extensive experiences in managing diabetes reoriented researchers to see community members as highly skilled and capable trainers rather than “needy” recipients of training. “So, rather than asking community organizations to enlist trainees, it might be to identify the best trainers,” he explained.
Panelists shared their experiences and insights on building partnerships that genuinely integrate and value diverse forms of expertise.
SHIFTING DYNAMICS OF EXPERTISE IN RESEARCH-PRACTICE PARTNERSHIPS
William Penuel, distinguished professor of learning sciences and human development at the University of Colorado Boulder, described shifts in the dynamics of power and expertise that he has experienced through his collaborative work with Denver Public Schools over the past 17 years, primarily focused on supporting standards implementation through curriculum and curriculum-linked professional learning. These activities are key systems-level leverage points for equity-oriented change, Penuel explained. In the past several years, the partnership has focused on co-design of curriculum. Co-design, a core practice in his research-practice partnerships, intrinsically involves valuing practitioners’ expertise, he said. “Often researchers come to me who are interested in partnerships, but they have an intervention already developed. And they want other people just to use it, and then they want to call that a partnership. And the question I ask, and I use this language, because this is how they think about it, [is] are you willing to have your intervention mangled? And if you are not, you are not ready for partnership. Because you don’t yet value sufficiently the expertise of the people who are going to adapt and implement that.” In a co-design model, teachers are scholars alongside the researchers, contributing directly to the insights of research.
To illustrate, Penuel described the development of the OpenSciEd1 high school science curriculum, which aimed to provide more equitable classroom experiences for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In this project, teachers served as full-time members of the design team, not just as classroom implementers, and they also participated alongside researchers in interpreting data. By positioning teachers as experts, the team used teachers’ first-hand experiences and insights in curriculum development. Careful facilitation created an environment in which practitioners’ voices were genuinely valued and integrated, Penuel said.
Douglas Watkins, manager of K–12 science curriculum and instruction and Penuel’s connection to teachers and administrators at Denver Public Schools, offered his perspectives on working in collaboration with Penuel and his team. He addressed the implementation of the curriculum project. The project was collaborative from the beginning, Watkins said, noting his involvement in identifying problems of practice and shaping the direction of the work. Although Watkins was initially skeptical about the value of the project, he changed his perspective 10 months later after spending 2 days experiencing the co-designed curriculum as a student. That experience convinced him of the curriculum’s potential to provide more equitable
___________________
STEM experiences in classrooms. From that moment on, Watkins said, he was “all in,” and he focused on recruiting as many teachers as possible who could experience the same “light bulb click” and become leaders in promoting the new approach.
CENTERING COMMUNITY EXPERTISE IN RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS
Eboné Lockett, chief executive officer and principal consultant of Harvesting Humanity,2 was asked to describe how she decides whether to participate in research partnerships. Lockett began by introducing herself: “I am the great granddaughter of migrant and immigrant farmers. I currently reside in Charlotte, North Carolina, because it was a return to finding out who I am and whose I am and who I’m responsible to and who I’m responsible for.” Thus, her primary consideration, she explained, lies in ensuring research partnerships genuinely serve her community—namely, that they center and respect community members and honor their humanity. “Is this serving the people that I’m responsible to and who I’m responsible for? [. . .] That is my first lens, and that is the first measure.”
Lockett also described the relationship-building process that proceeded any involvement with research. The first significant collaboration developed through a personal interaction with White. “You have to meet people at that human-to-human connection first. And then I shared all my degrees [. . .] all of the things that allowed me to be able to walk in my expertise as an academic, but also first and foremost, my expertise as a community member,” she stated. Through the connection with White, Lockett was able to approach him for help in finding a research partner to enable the high school students from a local Title I school that she worked with to study the water quality in their school and community. White was able to facilitate a connection between Lockett and a researcher that led to a successful grant application in which Lockett and the researcher were co-principal investigators. The positive experience working in collaboration over the 2 years of that project led to meaningful experiences for Lockett’s students, including presenting their research posters at a conference, which played a role in Lockett’s openness to considering future research collaborations.
Ian Binns, associate professor at the Cato College of Education, UNC–Charlotte, and lead community engagement recruiter for the Computational Intelligence to Predict Health and Environmental Risks (CIPHER) Center, described his experience working collaboratively with Lockett on a proposal to address community environmental and health risks. He described how CIPHER navigates engagement with community partners and how
___________________
he convinces his peers of the value of such collaborations. In communicating with his multidisciplinary team of researchers, Binns stressed the importance of learning what the community needed in terms of predicting environmental or health risks. As he explained, “We can’t approach communities and expect that they are just going to listen and do what we ask. That’s not the way this works.” Although scientists do “bring something to the table,” they do not hold all the answers and need to approach partnership work as such, he said.
In sharing his experience meeting Lockett and approaching a potential partnership, Binns described how Lockett pushed him in their initial interactions. She helped him realize that his actions were not always reflecting humility, Binns explained. Echoing earlier panelists, Lockett said, “When researchers come to the community, it is often with the assumption that the expertise doesn’t already reside in the community.” However, she noted, community members, especially those who are most affected by the issues being studied, often have the capacity, degrees, and language to understand the problem, as well as valuable insights and experiences that can inform the research.
“It was an uncomfortable feeling during that first meeting with Eboné, but instead of turning and running, I chose to sit with it. I made sure that I sat there and listened and did not defend anything. I listened because I realized that’s what I had to do,” Binns said, noting that he subsequently adjusted his approach. He shared this experience with his team to emphasize that building genuine partnerships requires listening and the willingness to endure discomfort.
VALUING EXPERTISE AT SCALE
To illustrate how community expertise can be recognized “at scale” in broader contexts, Penuel elaborated on his work with Denver Public Schools. He explained that the initial National Science Foundation-funded inquiryHub3 project involved co-designing a limited number of pilot units for a biology curriculum. Penuel recalled a pivotal moment when a school district administrator, recognizing the value of the product, requested the co-design of a complete curriculum, which the district funded. This deep investment into local work had a paradoxical effect, said Penuel, in that it facilitated broader adoption and scaling of the curriculum beyond his district. He said,
And suddenly this paradox emerges that this careful local work is what enables work to scale. And this is not what we usually think. We think the way to make things work is to design for anywhere. But the paradoxes
___________________
of scale for me are two things. One is that the way you make something scalable is to do deep local work so that it can work some place first, and then remember that it’s relationships all the way down in the next place [. . .] There is no scale without people at every level and new relationships that take time to develop.
He contrasted this approach with the software development model, which relies on upfront investment and minimal ongoing engagement. Watkins affirmed the efficacy of the model developed through inquiryHub in his district, highlighting the role of Penuel and his team in expertly designing a project that facilitated meaningful community engagement. Watkins emphasized the important benefits of having research that demonstrated the outcomes related to teaching and learning through observations of meaningful shifts in teaching and student experiences. These data helped Watkins communicate with senior leaders in his own district about the importance of continuing the work and contributed to the curriculum’s adoption outside of Colorado. This work requires committed community partners who are deeply integrated into the project and who remain engaged over a long term, amidst inevitable turnover, noted Watkins.
BUILDING COMMUNITY CAPACITY FOR AGENCY
Lockett discussed methods that can empower community partners to engage universities and other institutions with agency, highlighting four key components she uses in community training. Lockett, an artist with more than 22 years of experience as an educational practitioner, first noted that she uses art in its most expansive form to connect with people, by using her creativity to translate research into a form that is relatable and accessible to the community.
Second, Lockett noted her efforts to create an inviting atmosphere for community participants, helping them interact with researchers confidently and courageously. “I’m the bridge and the guide across the bridge to academia because I know how to sit in both spaces,” she said.
Third, Lockett aims to “translate the language of research.” This necessitates cultural sensitivity, she noted, explaining that the language used in research can carry significant weight and may need to be adjusted to respect community members’ experiences. For example, she prefers the term “experience” over “project,” to avoid the negative connotations associated with the trauma-laden term for housing developments in her community. Finally, Lockett explained that lifting up and honoring community expertise and experiences can erode distrust and help people to feel more comfortable and valued as research practitioners.
DISCUSSION
Challenges in Co-Design and Funding
Rick Tankersley, vice president for research and graduate studies at Portland State University, pointed out a significant challenge faced by researchers: While the co-design process is crucial for building trust and effective community partnerships, it often does not align well with funding processes. The expectation of funders that evidence-based designs be largely established at the time of proposal submission conflicts with co-design as an integral part of project development, he said.
Acknowledging this challenge, Penuel agreed that research-practice partnerships often survive despite the existing funding infrastructure rather than because of it. Receiving funding for community-engaged or partnership research, he said, is an art that requires focusing on the evidence base for the proposed approach and presenting a clear plan for achieving the project’s goals—although he acknowledged that this approach is not always successful. Penuel suggested that funders could think about community-engaged projects differently; for example, they could determine whether a proposal is justified based on evidence of the community’s need and desire for the intervention.
Binns affirmed Penuel’s assessment, noting that his desired first step in planning the collaborative proposal with Lockett was to develop relationships within the community. “I really wish we could have had funding to just be on the ground, working together side by side, getting our hands dirty together, and learning from each other. That’s what I wish we could have started with. So that was very hard to navigate.”
Entry Points for Engaged Research
The discussion shifted to the entry points for engaged research, including co-design—namely, where it starts and how people begin the process. In the early stages of a collaborative project, universities need to be open and available to the community, Lockett said. She explained that her relationship with White at UNC Charlotte allowed her to communicate her community’s needs and find support mechanisms in the university. Continued “open door access” as well as university support throughout the project foster collective success, she added.
White noted the frequent mention made during the workshop of individuals with official or unofficial navigator and facilitator roles—people who can serve as crucial entry points for engaged work by connecting researchers with communities. “This is a skill that comes with some experience and expertise,” he said, noting that institutions that do not have
dedicated staff for this purpose could benefit from identifying individuals, both in the institution and in the community, who can serve as connectors.
Revolutionizing Scholar Training
Noting the lack of educational opportunities available to teach scholars about engaged research, a participant asked the panel to consider which key capacities, infrastructure, or components need to be developed to better equip researchers to participate in such work.
Lockett suggested the need for vertical alignment in the education system starting from K–12, preparing learners early on for engaged research and community collaboration. “This needs to be a throughline in all of our education systems—formal, informal, private, everywhere,” Lockett said. “Our nation could be doing a much better job at this, and we are going to be the ones to step up to that challenge and show them how.” One important learning involves valuing qualitative research equally to quantitative research, she added. “I think those stories that live in the community, if we only understood how to take [those] data and really make [them] matter, that’s the revolution.”
Measuring Success by Community Impact
When asked to identify the key outcomes they seek to elevate in their engaged partnerships, panelists focused on community impact. Such impact stems from deep relationships and the insights provided through the meaningful participation of community partners, including co-design work, noted Binns. Lockett added that impact also necessitates effective implementation of community-driven solutions. Watkins and Penuel concurred, noting that complex outcomes, such as improving epistemic justice in science classrooms, necessitate systems transformation—large-scale changes that can only be achieved through multiple intermediate outcomes.
Evolving Ethical Standards for Community-Engaged Research
Providing a historical perspective on ethical shifts in research practices, a participant noted that the Belmont Report4 marked a significant change in biomedical research, resulting in an emphasis on individual autonomy and consent. He suggested that today’s engaged research introduces a new ethical challenge: meaningfully incorporating community consent and participation.
___________________
4 Office of the Secretary. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Penuel noted that emerging models from Indigenous communities, including involvement of community elders and data sovereignty initiatives, focus on ethical considerations of consent and participation in engaged research. He further suggested that ethical issues faced in artificial intelligence and other newly emerging fields, such as questions of data ownership, could provide insights.
White questioned how engaging communities as individuals rather than as collective entities affects the approach to ethical research partnerships. Communities are not monolithic, Lockett responded, voicing her opinion that the value and tone of both individual and collective engagements need to be considered.
Addressing Skepticism
In addressing the skepticism researchers might face when advocating for engaged research, White asked panelists to provide insights on responding to those who question the necessity and feasibility of such work.
Regarding skepticism at the community level, Binns used the lack of trust observed during the rollout of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine as an example. He noted that community outreach efforts need to extend beyond the superficial to establish or rebuild trust, explaining that this realization encouraged him and his team to embrace discomfort and work toward building trust through genuine engagement: “Now I need to go into these communities and listen. The team I’m working with recognizes that, and a growing number of people recognize that.”
Penuel noted continued skepticism around partnership work at the federal level, a sector that, in his opinion, undervalues relationship building in engaged research. Addressing federal skepticism necessitates a broad set of measurable outcomes, Penuel said, including demonstrated solutions to communities’ and educational systems’ problems, increased trust, changed relationships, and the capacity for joint work. Lockett added another outcome—sourcing and resourcing community efforts. She pointed out that many communities are already working to solve their problems but lack the necessary resources to scale effective solutions.
