Challenges in conducting research in community settings and community engagement strategies in response

Abstract

Traditional research paradigms have often treated communities primarily as passive sources of data, resulting in extractive practices that overlook local priorities and knowledge systems. Community-Based Research (CBR) challenges this dynamic by emphasizing equitable co-ownership of research processes, shared decision-making, and active participation of community members  throughout the research process. This review article examines  challenges in conducting CBR and how multifaceted community engagement strategies can serve as an essential response. Specifically, the review uses a framework-mapping approach to explore their areas of relevance and contribution. The challenges span multiple dimensions, including ethical and equitable partnerships, collaboratively defining research priorities, co-designing methods, fostering community capacity, ensuring sustainability of partnerships, and meaningfully assessing outcomes over time. Importantly, these challenges are not static; they shift in nature and intensity across different stages of the research lifecycle and vary according to community, cultural, and contextual factors. Mapping these challenges against community engagement frameworks highlights areas of convergence and complementarity, illustrating how different approaches contribute to addressing distinct aspects of CBR. The review underscores that addressing these challenges requires flexible, relational approaches rooted in genuine power-sharing, supported by institutional commitment to long-term collaboration. Embedding comprehensive, context-specific engagement strategies into CBR is critical to ensuring research is methodologically sound, socially responsive, culturally attuned, and co-owned by communities. No single framework fully encompasses the breadth of challenges encountered in CBR, underscoring the value of integrating complementary engagement approaches. Such practices enable research to move beyond knowledge extraction toward a collaborative and transformative endeavor conducted with, by, and for communities.

Background

Research intended to benefit communities has too often positioned them as data sources rather than as equal partners in knowledge production [1]. This perpetuates a cycle of extractive practice: communities are studied upon, spoken for, and left at the margins of scholarly inquiry - even as they remain its intended beneficiaries [2, 3]. Authentic community-based research instead positions communities as co-architects, ensuring that lived experience shapes every stage of the process, from framing questions to interpreting and applying findings [4]. When research is conducted “with” and “by” communities - not merely “about” or “for” them - it becomes more equitable, contextually grounded, empowering, democratized, and ultimately transformative [4].

Conducting research in community settings requires more than simply situating a study within a geographic or social locale; it demands a fundamental shift in how knowledge is generated, shared, and applied. Traditional research paradigms often fail to acknowledge or adequately represent the local knowledge and lived experiences of communities, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds [4, 5]. Community based research (CBR), the research conducted in community settings, addresses this limitation by creating spaces for authentic community voice and narrative, offering a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to research [6]. Research conducted in community settings can be conceptualized along a continuum of community involvement, ranging from - minimal engagement where studies are conducted “in the community” but do not have meaningful influence from its members over the research agenda, design, or outcomes; participatory approaches of “with the community” ensuring inclusivity, power-sharing, and co-ownership; and community-led models where research “by the community” is owned and directed by community members themselves with external partners in supportive roles [7, 8]. This review’s objective is to examine the complex and evolving challenges encountered in conducting research in community settings and to explore how multifaceted community engagement strategies can effectively address and transform them into opportunities for equitable, empowered, and sustainable partnerships that advance collective impact. Although community or patient engagement and participatory approaches are widely applied across public health, implementation, clinical, and health services research, this review focuses specifically on their application to the distinctive challenges encountered in community-based research, where equitable partnership with communities is foundational.

The literature on community-based research and community engagement is currently substantial. Prior syntheses have catalogued partnership principles, strategies, and outcomes [9–11], and the challenges of engaging communities in research have themselves been examined from several distinct vantage points. Examples include the practical, epistemological, and ethical tensions of participatory action research across disciplines [12]; the difficulties of scaling participatory design to large and heterogeneous settings [13]; the ethical challenges that recur across community-based participatory research internationally [14]; and the barriers of participatory research with a very specific marginalized groups, such as refugees with disabilities [15]. This narrative review contributes a distinct, practice-grounded synthesis that draws these threads together, by tracing how recurrent challenges arise and evolve across the full research lifecycle and pairing each with the established engagement frameworks used in response. This narrative review uses targeted searches, reference screening, and author expertise to map common challenges in community-based research and outline key conceptual frameworks and strategies addressing barriers across diverse settings.

Terminological variations and unified principles

CBR is known by various names across different contexts and disciplines, including participatory action research (PAR), community-engaged research (CEnR), emancipatory research, user-centered design research, human centered design, or collaborative inquiry [16]. While terminology may vary, these approaches share fundamental concepts centered on social justice and equity, acknowledging that research exists within systems of power; epistemological pluralism that challenges prevailing positivist views [17]; and participatory empowerment that actively involves community members throughout the research process [18].

Community-based research is guided by a set of core principles, which are rooted in foundational concepts including: democratic participation involving all rights-holders [19, 20]; equitable involvement ensuring fair access to decision-making [17]; cultural humility emphasizing respect for cultural identities [21]; commitment to social justice [22]; and accountability to community that reinforces sustainable relationships [19].

Among these terms, community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a widely used framing within the public health literature [23]. We use “community-based research” (CBR) here as the broader umbrella term, encompassing CBPR alongside related traditions such as participatory action research and community-engaged research, while recognizing that several frameworks and studies we draw on were developed within or specifically labelled as CBPR. The shared commitments to equitable partnership, co-ownership, and social transformation that anchor CBPR carry over to the wider family of CBR approaches, which is why we draw on this literature throughout.

Application of community based research in public health and health equity

CBR has demonstrated significant contributions to public health research, particularly in addressing health disparities and inequities affecting marginalized communities. The approach involves diverse rights-holders and other research partners including academic researchers, community members, community leaders, healthcare providers, and representatives from affected populations [24, 25]. CBR emphasizes equitable partnerships between researchers and community members, with the goal of co-creating knowledge and taking action to improve community health [26]. This collaborative process helps ensure that research questions, methods, and interventions are relevant and acceptable to the target community [7, 27].

One of the key principles of CBR is the active involvement of community members throughout the research process is essential in addressing health inequities as this helps build trust and community capacity and promote the use of research to drive social change by creating the platform the people to own and utilize their research [28, 29]. CBR has been particularly valuable for engaging marginalized populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, and low-income communities, who have historically been underrepresented in research [24, 25]. By centering community voices and expertise, CBR has been effective in addressing a range of public health issues, including chronic disease prevention, mental health, environmental health, and infectious disease control [24, 25, 27]. For example, CBR approaches have been used to develop culturally-tailored health promotion interventions, investigate social determinants of health, and advocate for policy changes to improve community conditions [24, 30]. CBR is instrumental in decolonization and democratization of the research process and empowering marginalized communities, consequently, reducing disparities and fostering more inclusive, responsive, and effective public health initiatives [11, 31].

Challenges in conducting research in community settings

While CBR offers a powerful framework for generating knowledge that is relevant, equitable, empowering, and action-oriented, its collaborative and participatory nature also introduces distinct challenges. Conducting research in partnership with communities requires navigating complex relational, ethical, and logistical dynamics that differ markedly from traditional research paradigms. Researchers must be prepared to address issues such as building and sustaining trust, managing power imbalances, ensuring meaningful participation, and balancing academic rigor with community priorities. These challenges are not indicative of shortcomings on the part of the community; rather, they reflect the intricate work of fostering authentic partnerships and co-creating knowledge in diverse, real-world settings. Recognizing and understanding these challenges is essential for developing strategies that support effective, respectful, and impactful community-based research. The following sections explore these challenges in detail, organized under key thematic areas (Fig. 1) to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in conducting effective and ethical community-based research.

Fig. 1.

Challenges of conducting research in community settings

Challenges in initiating equitable and ethical partnerships with community

Establishing Acceptance, Building Trust, and Fostering Relationships

Establishing trust with the community is one of the most vital challenges in CBR. Researchers often enter communities with limited knowledge of local histories, cultural norms, and social dynamics. This unfamiliarity can lead to skepticism or outright resistance [32]. Building trust requires sustained engagement and consistent interaction from the research team. In some cases, communities have been harmed or misrepresented by researchers in the past. These experiences leave lasting impressions and can shape the way new research efforts are received [17]. Without a foundation of mutual trust, collaboration becomes difficult thereby preventing meaningful research with the community.

Unbalanced power dynamics

Despite equitable collaboration and equal distribution of power being at the core of CBR, power imbalances persist. Researchers typically manage resources, timelines, plans, and the general research process which often places power dynamics in favor of the research team [18]. Therefore, promoting a balanced power dynamic is essential. Creating an equitable power dynamic between researchers and communities means involving everyone right from setting the goals, to designing the research process, analyzing results, and deciding knowledge translation strategies. Achieving this kind of balance requires shared leadership and genuinely participatory decision-making. Without it, there’s a real risk that the work becomes extractive, undermining the trust and mutual respect that make true partnership possible. Power asymmetries in community-based research operate at multiple levels, not only in decision-making and resource control, but also in researcher identity and positionality and in epistemic authority over whose knowledge counts as legitimate [33]. Relatedly, Key and colleagues describe meaningful community engagement as requiring sustained attention to equity indicators (power and control, decision-making, influence, ownership, resource-sharing, responsibility, and mutual benefit) alongside relational contextual factors (history, trust, relationship-building, respect, and transparency) at every stage of the research process [34].

Historical and political contexts in community engagement

The communities CBR often engage with are often marginalized and racialized that carry legacies of historical or so called intergenerational trauma, colonization, and political marginalization that shape their engagement with research [35]. While many immigrant communities may not necessarily have intergenerational trauma as such, many immigrant communities have been shown to be particularly reluctant to participate in research attributed to systemic discrimination and political anti-immigrant narrative against them [3, 36]. These experiences shape their acceptance of research, level and willingness to participate, and expectations of research outcomes. Failing to acknowledge this may lead to disengagement, distrust, and resistance to research [35]. Concrete examples include the legacies of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and related research harms in U.S. Black communities, which continue to shape Black community participation in health research [37], as well as histories of harmful research practices in racialized and immigrant communities. For example, the U.S. Public Health Service sexually transmitted disease experiments conducted in Guatemala (1946–1948), in which uninformed prisoners, soldiers, and psychiatric patients were deliberately infected, and, more recently, the enrollment of predominantly undocumented Latine immigrants in for-profit drug trials under inadequate consent and coercive incentives [38]. Beyond overt abuses, racialized and immigrant communities are also harmed by exclusionary research practices, including the routine omission of limited-English-proficient and immigrant participants and the aggregation of heterogeneous subgroups that masks within-group disparities [39]. Such histories and practices shape how these communities perceive and engage with research.

Ethical complexity and community consent

Ethical approval from a research ethics board is an important and required step prior to conducting research with a community. However, an ethical conduct of research with the community goes beyond obtaining an approval from a board or institution; it means having genuine community consent and includes continuous dialogue, collective decision-making, and transparency about risks, benefits, and data use [40]. Researchers must practice ongoing, context-sensitive ethics that uphold community autonomy, protect against harm, and reflect shared values [40].

Cultural humility and researcher positionality

More often than not, the communities involved in CBR are often marginalized, racialized, or sensitive. This requires robust cultural humility to ensure sensitivity and foster respect to communities. Cultural humility is ingrained in the foundation of CBR; it is the process of being aware of and including community values, traditions, and perspectives at every step along the research way. If this is ignored, researchers may end up applying inappropriate tools or reaching conclusions that are not consistent with the community’s way of life [8]. Missteps in ensuring cultural competence and relevance can cause distrust or disengagement.

Challenges in co-defining priorities and co-designing research

Adaptive and Responsive Research Design

CBR is reflexive and adaptive in nature, emphasizing that flexibility is important to meet community needs. Rigid research structures and timelines, preset goals, and institutional constraints often challenge CBR’s constantly evolving and adaptive profile which may conflict with the effort to maintain relevance. Adaptive research design enables ongoing revision, iteration, and responsiveness which allows the process to evolve organically in collaboration with community feedback [41]. While this can create tensions with traditional academic expectations, it is necessary for truly community-centered research.

Communication barriers and accessibility

Clear and effective communication is essential to CBR but is often a challenge. Many communities that CBR partners with, like immigrant communities, speak languages that are not English, thus posing a challenge to researchers who may only be well-versed in English. In addition, academic research often uses formal English and jargon, which adds more challenges to those facing language barriers [42]. When communication tools and processes do not meet the community’s linguistic and literacy levels, engagement becomes uneven and limited [42]. Mitigating language barriers whether through translation, interpretation, plain language, or visual methods enhance mutual understanding and allows for the equitable participation of the community. Further, research nowadays is heavily reliant on technology; from surveys, communication methods, and computer software for analysis, technology has become an integral part of research. However, not all communities have reliable access to internal, adequate devices and digital literacy [43]. The researchers may need to adapt to their communication, engagement approach, and research instruments to address that limitation.

Limited research literacy in the community and its underestimation by researchers

Researchers often underestimate the extent to which academic language and research methodologies are foreign to community members [17, 18]. The field of research is dominated by technical jargon and professional terminology that can create significant barriers to meaningful participation. Studies have shown that the communication styles employed by researchers often reinforce these hierarchical relationships rather than nurture collaborative partnerships [3]. Researchers may not recognize that their jargon-rich discourse could be perceived as patronizing or unapproachable, thus deterring individuals from engaging in the research process [44]. As highlighted in the literature, the challenge lies not in the community’s inability to understand research but rather in the researchers’ lack of effective communication tailored to the cultural context of the participants [3].

Internal community dynamics

Understanding internal community dynamics may present a challenge to CBR. Tensions may arise between individuals or groups on priorities, organization, representation, or leadership [45]. Hence, it is important to acknowledge that communities are shaped by internal diversity, power hierarchies, and varying interests [45]. Recognizing and navigating these internal dynamics is essential to avoid reinforcing inequities or excluding marginalized voices within the community itself which requires sensitivity, deep listening, and equitable facilitation from the research team.

Balancing urgent action vs. rigorous research

Researchers often struggle to balance community needs for immediate action with academic requirements for rigorous methodology [46, 47]. Communities may prioritize a rapid response to pressing problems, for example, within refugee research or a rapidly evolving pandemic situation, while researchers need to focus on methodological rigor and comprehensive analysis [47]. This tension reflects researchers’ lack of developing flexible approaches that can meet both community needs and academic standards simultaneously [17, 46]. Developing methodologies that both address urgent community concerns and maintain scientific rigor can be hampered by limited resources and opportunities available to the researchers [31].

Challenges in building and supporting community capability

Capacity & Resource Constraints

Many communities engaged in CBR face challenges related to limited resources [6]. They may lack technical skills, research experience, or access to tools and infrastructure. This can hinder full participation and slow down the project. Capacity building is a core principle of CBR, but it takes time and funding. It involves training, mentoring, and ongoing support. When done well, it strengthens the community’s ability to lead future initiatives. Without it, participation risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

Fair compensation and community recognition

An often-implicit oversight in CBR is the lack of fair compensation and recognition for community members and scholars’ time, knowledge, and engagement [48]. While the research team may be funded by grants, universities, or institutions, community members and scholars often share their knowledge and contribute to the research process with inadequate or insufficient financial support or acknowledgement [48]. This imbalance reflects extractive dynamics. In recognizing community members as partners in the research process, it is also important to fairly compensate them by giving them appropriate credit such as authorship or public acknowledgement.

Inadequate researcher preparation, training and unrealistic expectations

Many researchers enter community-based work without adequate training in community engagement, cultural competency, or participatory research methods [6, 49]. Traditional academic training emphasizes technical research skills but often neglects the interpersonal, cultural, and political competencies required for successful community partnership [6, 17]. This gap in preparation creates situations where well-intentioned researchers inadvertently harm communities through insensitive approaches or unrealistic expectations [8].

Researchers often enter community partnerships with unrealistic expectations about the collaborative process, failing to anticipate the conflicts and disagreements that are natural parts of any authentic partnership [50]. The idealization of community partnership can lead researchers to be unprepared for the messiness of real collaboration, including disagreements about research priorities, methodologies, or interpretation of findings [2].

Underestimating time commitment & workload

Researchers consistently underestimate the time required for genuine community engagement, often attempting to compress relationship-building into academic timelines that serve institutional rather than community needs [19, 51]. The academic calendar, with its semester-based structure and pressure for rapid results, conflicts fundamentally with the pace required for authentic community partnership [51]. This temporal mismatch reflects researchers’ failure to understand that trust-building and meaningful collaboration require sustained engagement over extended periods.

The workload associated with community engagement extends far beyond traditional research activities to include ongoing relationship maintenance, community meetings, conflict resolution, and collaborative decision-making [18, 52]. Researchers often fail to budget adequate time for these essential partnership activities, leading to rushed or superficial engagement that undermines the collaborative intent of CBR [18, 52].

Challenges in community engagement/partnership sustainability & impact

Sustainability and ownership

Sustaining interest after a project end is an imperative but difficult one. The majority of CBR projects are limited by finite funding cycles. This works against being able to sustain partnerships intact or build momentum in the long term [6, 53]. When projects end rather abruptly, communities may become disillusioned or feel abandoned. To avoid this, sustainability must be envisioned from the start. These include such tactics as leadership training, follow-up programs, and open communication about future steps [53]. Without these efforts, the positive impacts of community-based research (CBR) risk becoming temporary or superficial. The dissolution of collaborative structures can erode trust and diminish the value of community engagement.

Research fatigue in the community

Research fatigue represents a significant and underrecognized challenge in CBR, reflecting researchers’ failure to coordinate effectively and consider the cumulative impact of multiple research projects on communities [1]. Community research fatigue occurs when community members feel exhausted or overwhelmed by repeated requests to participate in research, particularly when they do not see tangible results or meaningful change from their involvement [1, 6]. This phenomenon is exacerbated by researchers’ tendency to approach communities independently, without regard for previous research experiences or ongoing projects, and without ensuring that findings are shared back in accessible and actionable ways [1, 2]. The challenge of research fatigue is not a reflection of community disinterest in research but rather of researchers’ inadequate preparation, coordination, and commitment to reciprocal engagement [50].

Non-optimal strategies for community dissemination and knowledge translation

Researchers consistently fail to develop adequate strategies for sharing research findings with community partners and ensuring community access to research outputs [50, 54]. Academic publishing models create barriers to community access through paywalls, technical language, and formats that do not meet community needs [16]. Less than half of community-based participatory researchers report disseminating their findings outside of academic publications, and only a minority involve community members in the dissemination process [50, 54]. The challenge extends beyond simply sharing results to ensuring that communities can use, interpret, and benefit from the knowledge they helped create [16]. Equitable dissemination requires a commitment to open access, plain language summaries, and community-led knowledge translation strategies that prioritize usability and local relevance outputs [50, 54].

Addressing challenges in community based research through community engagement

Community engagement serves as both the process and the guiding principle through which the challenges inherent in conducting research within community settings can be addressed. Certain methodological approaches or frameworks could be useful in navigating this complex terrain of community engagement while upholding the core principles and characteristics of CBR. Employing theoretical and practical frameworks grounded in community knowledge systems and participatory ethics allows researchers and communities to collaboratively reconfigure traditional research paradigms. This form of engagement fosters equitable power-sharing, culturally responsive practices, and mutual accountability, thereby overcoming not only immediate relational barriers but also entrenched systemic obstacles within academic and funding institutions. The following section introduces key conceptual frameworks that illuminate the ethical, cultural, and operational dimensions of community engagement in CBR, particularly involving racialized and immigrant communities, given our experience. These frameworks provide critical tools for confronting challenges related to historical inequities, power dynamics, community acceptance, capacity building, and sustained participation. Taken together, these seven frameworks illuminate distinct dimensions of the challenges identified in the preceding sections: Community-engaged Scholarship through the Four Rs speaks to historical, ethical, and cultural challenges; Normalization Process Theory to acceptance and embedding; Arnstein’s Ladder and the IAP2 Spectrum to power and the calibration of participation; Asset-Based Community Development to capacity and resource constraints; Infinite Game Theory to sustainability; and Diffusion of Innovation to reach and the equitable expansion of engagement. Rather than representing competing or mutually exclusive approaches, these conceptual frameworks offer complementary perspectives that can inform the selection and implementation of contextually appropriate community engagement strategies. Their relevance depends on the specific challenges being addressed, the stage of the community-based research process, and the community and organizational context. Each has been applied or proposed in response to challenges of the kind we describe, and each illuminates a different facet rather than offering a complete solution on its own. By integrating these approaches described here, researchers and communities can collaboratively advance toward more just, effective, and enduring research partnerships.

Community-engaged scholarship: ethical and cultural integration through the four rs framework

Community-engaged Scholarship based on Kirkness and Barnhardt’s (1991) Four Rs framework: Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, and Responsibility, provides an ethical foundation for addressing challenges related to historical and political contexts, cultural humility and researcher positionality, and fair compensation and community recognition [55]. Rooted in Indigenous knowledge systems, this framework confronts colonial research legacies and provides decolonizing guidance by addressing epistemic biases that continues to prevail in academic institutions [56, 57].

The principle of Respect acknowledges community knowledge systems validity and demonstrates cultural humility by recognizing past relationships, power dynamics, and researchers’ positionality as essential first steps [58] Relevance addresses challenges related to misaligned research priorities and ensures that research questions and approaches are meaningful to the community context [59]. Reciprocity confronts systemic challenges where academic institutions prioritize individual competition over community benefits, creating barriers to equitable resource sharing. By establishing mutual benefit as a core principle, balancing urgent action that needed in the community with the rigors of research, this principle encourages researchers to ensure that communities receive tangible value from their participation. Responsibility addresses ethical complexity by holding researchers accountable for their work’s consequences within communities. This principle promotes transparency regarding data use, knowledge dissemination, and long-term impacts of research initiatives [45, 55, 57]. Although Kirkness and Barnhardt originally articulated the Four Rs from their work with First Nations learners in higher education, the framework has since been widely taken up in Indigenous and community-based health research as a relational research ethic; in practice it is operationalized through community-defined research protocols, reciprocal benefit-sharing, and accountability mechanisms such as community review of findings prior to dissemination, directly countering the long history in which research itself has been experienced by marginalized communities as an extractive and colonizing practice [60].

Normalization process theory: community acceptance and integration

Communities may view research as extractive or irrelevant, making it imperative for researchers to normalize culturally responsive practices within institutions and community spaces. Normalization Process Theory (NPT), developed by May and their colleagues directly addresses the significant challenge of community resistance to CBR methodologies [61, 62]. While the Four Rs framework help navigate ethical complexity and community consent for working with historically traumatized communities, NPT focuses specifically on the practical processes of embedding research practices within community contexts. This theory provides a framework for understanding how CBR practices become embedded and accepted within community contexts through four types of work: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring [63].

NPT offers strategies for building trust, particularly with marginalized populations who have developed skepticism due to historical exploitation and helicopter research practices [64]. Research is often perceived as a “dirty word” by communities that have experienced previous harm from extractive research relationships [8]. Additionally, communities frequently face barriers such as suspicion of strangers, fear of external intrusion, and lack of understanding about research purposes and benefits [59]. NPT provides a set of sociological tools that help understand the social processes through which CBR practices can become “routinely embedded” and accepted within community contexts [62]. NPT’s coherence work enables communities to engage in “communal specification” processes, defining research meaning in their context and ensuring it addresses actual needs rather than external priorities [62]. Rather than researchers arriving as strangers, NPT emphasizes cognitive participation through symbolic and actual engagement by the researchers within community social structures, ensuring research is seen as legitimate within existing community relationship. NPT’s collective action construct addresses these operational challenges by focusing on mobilization of resources, capacity building and equitable participation in different stages of research and decision-making, building confidence and expertise [65]. NPT’s reflexive monitoring establishes systematic feedback mechanisms through appraising and monitoring implementation work [65]. NPT helps explain how complex interventions while implementing become embedded, sustained, and integrated into routine practice; applied to CBR, it offers a practical lens for diagnosing whether participatory practices, for example, a community advisory board or a co-analysis routine, have merely been adopted on paper or have genuinely become normalized in the everyday work of both the research team and the community organization [66].

Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation: reconfiguring power dynamics

CBR’s participation emphasis often conceals complex power negotiations regarding decision-making, community representation, and knowledge legitimization. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation offers both diagnostic and prescriptive tools for addressing power imbalances in CBR [67]. The ladder’s progression from manipulation to citizen control highlights the risks of tokenistic engagement and offers a vision for more equitable partnerships. In the context of ethical complexity, community consent, and internal community dynamics, the ladder serves as a reminder that engagement must go beyond consultation and toward shared governance [68]. By intentionally striving for the upper rungs of the ladder-partnership, delegated power, and citizen control-researchers can confront and reconfigure traditional hierarchies, thereby fostering more equitable research relationships. The ladder addresses unbalanced power dynamics by identifying this asymmetry as a primary barrier to authentic community participation and offering a clear continuum of participation levels for explicit power-sharing mechanism [19]. This framework addresses internal community dynamics by acknowledging power operates at multiple community levels. The ladder encourages researchers to consider who represents the community, whose voices are privileged, and how power hierarchies within communities might impact equitable participation [68]. The ladder provides a framework for co-defining priorities and co-designing research by establishing clear benchmarks for evaluating community involvement depth.

Asset-based community development: capacity building and resource mobilization

Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD), developed by Kretzmann and McKnight, shifts focus from community deficits to community strengths, providing a framework for addressing challenges related to capacity and resource constraints [69]. ABCD reframes communities as rich in untapped assets, capacities, and leadership instead of lacking these resources [70]. ABCD is an effective tool in addressing resource limitations in CBR. Resource limitations are reflections of structural inequities and not just simple logistical concerns. By shifting the focus from a deficit lens and into one where communities are empowered by their knowledge and skills resources, ABCD creates a framework to address resource limitations [71]. This approach allows researchers to focus on building research capacity among the community through co-learning and gathering collective expertise where academic researchers and community members engage in a dynamic exchange of knowledge and perspectives [70]. Subsequently, this helps address challenges related to research ownership and sustainability by empowering communities to lead data collection and analysis [71]. ABCD in CBR practice typically begins with a community-led asset map of individual skills, associational networks, and local institutions, which is then mobilized for capacity building, for instance, by recruiting and training community members as co-researchers through existing trusted networks rather than importing external expertise.

Infinite game theory: sustaining engagement and relationships

Infinite Game Theory, as conceptualized by Carse offers a conceptual reframing that addresses challenges related to sustainability and ownership of research [72, 73]. This framework reconceptualizes community engagement not as a finite project with predefined endpoints but rather as an ‘infinite game’ characterized by continuous evolution and adaptation. When engagement is treated as a finite model, it risks becoming extractive and episodic which ultimately becomes unsustainable. On the contrary, when the engagement is considered as an infinite game with no predefined endpoint it becomes a long-term and evolving process that builds mutual learning, trust-building, and societal transformation and create compounding benefits that exceeds the immediate outcomes of individual studies [50, 74].

This framing of CBR as infinite game helps alleviate the challenge of adaptive and responsive research design by allowing for flexibility and iteration as it is no more restricted in a short time frame or specific study rather across the entire program of research, thereby enabling CBR to evolve with and for the community contexts and needs. By prioritizing relationships over research outcomes in looking at CBR as an infinite game, sustained engagement becomes not only a by-product but a central tenet of the research process [73, 74]. This inherently allows the researchers to enter long-term commitment and collaborative partnerships that directly addresses the challenges where projects ending abruptly lead communities to become disillusioned or feel abandoned [18, 51]. Turin and colleagues have translated this into community engagement, reframing a time-limited, grant-funded study as a single finite game nested within an open-ended commitment to the community, so that relationships, trust, and capacity are deliberately carried across funding cycles rather than dissolved at each project’s end [73].

Diffusion of innovation theory: expanding equitable engagement

Another persistent challenge in CBR is achieving broad and equitable engagement across the community. Engagement within any community typically falls along a continuum from individuals who are already inclined to participate, through early adopters, to the majority who have potential but need encouragement, and finally to those who are harder to reach or remain disengaged. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) framework, developed by Rogers [75], explains this continuum and can be adapted to develop strategies for shifting this continuum toward greater engagement through planned outreach that leverages peer-to-peer communication and networking among the community [76, 77]. While Infinite Game Theory addresses the temporal aspects of engagement sustainability, DOI focuses specifically on expanding participation breadth. It also encourages the use of culturally and contextually relevant strategies for outreach and knowledge mobilization, thereby improving access and equity.

This framework is particularly effective in addressing challenges related to communication and language accessibility, where clear and effective communication is essential to CBR but is often a challenge [76–78]. Many communities that CBR partners with, like immigrant communities, speak languages that are not English, thus posing a challenge to researchers who may only be well-versed in English [51]. By identifying early adopters, community champions, and trusted gatekeepers, researchers can facilitate knowledge transfer across language and cultural barriers, thereby expanding participation beyond the most accessible community members [76–78]. Further, the framework addresses the challenge of community research fatigue by emphasizing the importance of messaging, framing, and demonstrating tangible benefits to encourage participation [79]. For example, researchers can co‑develop outreach materials with community champions so that messaging uses familiar language and resonates with community priorities. When community members perceive clear value in their engagement, they are more likely to overcome initial skepticism or fatigue from previous research experiences.

The international association for public participation spectrum of public participation: structured engagement framework

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation offers a structured framework for addressing challenges related to defining appropriate levels of community involvement across different research contexts [80]. Introduced in 1999, this spectrumranges from informing (lowest level of participation) through consulting, involving, and collaborating, to empowering (highest level of participation). This assists with the selection of the level of participation that defines the public’s role in any public participation process [81].

Unlike earlier participation frameworks such as Arnstein’s ladder, the levels of participation in IAP2 framework were purposefully illustrated horizontally to show that all levels of CBR participating were potentially appropriate and selected for right reasons [81]. This design acknowledges that the all engagements not necessarily need to be all or certain rungs of ladder [81]. This framework addresses challenges related to flexible involvement by providing a continuum of engagement options that can be adapted to community capacities and project requirements. Each level includes specific goals, roles, and expected outcomes, creating clear expectations about community influence on decisions around research [80, 81]. It also addresses challenges related to managing expectations and conflict by establishing clear communication about the intended level of community involvement at each research stage [81]. Specifically, Arnstein’s Ladder is principally diagnostic as it draws attention to the risk of tokenistic engagement and to asymmetries of power that might otherwise pass unnoticed, and posits higher rungs as normatively preferable [68]. The IAP2 Spectrum, by contrast, is principally operational given it does not posit any one level as inherently better but instead offers a structured menu of engagement levels suitable for different decisions, stages, or contexts [80, 81]. The two frameworks therefore play complementary roles in CBR, the Ladder helps researchers and communities interrogate the quality of participation, while the Spectrum helps them choose, plan, and communicate the level of participation appropriate to a given activity.

Conceptual mapping of community engagement frameworks and challenges in community-based research

Table 1 shows a conceptual mapping of community engagement frameworks in relation to the challenges encountered in CBR. It provides a structured visual summary of how each framework offers complementary conceptual perspectives on the CBR challenges identified in this review. The checkmarks indicate interpretive correspondence based on the narrative synthesis, highlighting where a framework provides relevant conceptual insight into a given challenge. The mapping should not be interpreted as exclusive, hierarchical, or prescriptive, but rather as an integrative synthesis that illustrates overlap and convergence across frameworks.

Table 1.

Mapping Community Engagement Frameworks to Challenges in Community Based Research

Challenges in conducting research in community setting	Community Engagement Framework
	Four Rs	NPT	ALCP	ABCD	IG	DoI	IAP2
Acceptance, trust, and relationships		✪	✪	✪	✪	✪	✪
Power imbalances			✪				✪
Differing expectations and timelines	✪			✪	✪
Communication and language barriers	✪			✪
Cultural and contextual understanding	✪			✪
Co-creation and shared decision-making			✪		✪		✪
Resource allocation and capability		✪		✪
Data ownership, privacy, and ethics	✪						✪
Sustained engagement and follow-up		✪			✪	✪
Institutional support and policies		✪		✪		✪
Funding constraints and priorities				✪	✪
Academic recognition and rewards		✪
Equity and representation			✪				✪
Defining and measuring success		✪			✪	✪
Demonstrating value and impact		✪	✪			✪	✪
Learning from failures and adapting					✪

NB: Frameworks: Four Rs - Respect, Reciprocity, Responsibility, and Relevance; NPT - Normalization Process Theory; ALCP - Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation; ABCD - Asset-Based Community Development; IG - Infinite Game Theory; DoI - Diffusion of Innovations Theory; IAP2 - International Association for Public Participation

Many of the challenges summarized in this review are also shaped by broader institutional and structural conditions that influence how the frameworks can be enacted in practice. Collectively, the frameworks synthesized in this review underscore that their application depends not only on researchers and community partners, but also on institutional environments that can either enable or constrain meaningful community engagement in practice. The following section therefore examines the structural, systemic, and institutional conditions that exacerbate the challenges identified throughout the CBR process and influence the application of these engagement-oriented frameworks.

Structural, systemic, and institutional barriers exacerbating the challenges of conducting research in the community settings

The challenges examined in the preceding sections and the frameworks discussed above all play out within institutional contexts that can either enable or undermine CBR. Enacting comprehensive and meaningful community engagement to overcome the challenges of conducting research in community settings requires more than effective frameworks and strategies; it also heavily depends on the availability of enabling structural, systemic, and institutional environments. Addressing the challenges of community-based research requires both effective engagement frameworks and supportive institutional environments that enable authentic community partnerships. Traditional academic reward structures fundamentally misalign with community-based research practices, creating significant barriers to researcher engagement [5, 8]. Early-career researchers face particular vulnerability due to prolonged timelines and community-centered outcomes that may disadvantage them in conventional academic evaluation processes, with long-term community engagement often perceived as unproductive service rather than rigorous science [8, 82].

Academic institutions remain organized around disciplinary silos with rigid boundaries that impede the interdisciplinary collaboration essential for addressing complex community challenges. These departmental structures manifest through specialized budgets, publication venues, and methodological expectations that may not accommodate the flexible, relational approaches required by CBR [83, 84]. Researchers working across disciplines face challenges securing appropriate peer review, finding suitable publication outlets, and receiving recognition within their departments, undermining the comprehensive approaches needed for effective community-based research [51, 85].

Research funding structures frequently inadequately support the relationship-building required for authentic community partnership, with grant timelines conflicting with community rhythms and funding categories that may not accommodate interdisciplinary, collaborative work [8, 85]. Universities often lack administrative structures to support community partnerships, leaving individual researchers to navigate complex collaborations without institutional backing while limiting the scope, sustainability, and impact of CBR initiatives [86, 87].

This system prioritizes knowledge production by individual academic faculty members at the expense of long-term community partnerships and shared expertise. A long term community engagement and CBR are frequently seen as slow, unproductive process, and perceived as service than considered as rigorous science [82, 88]. To support researchers, institutions need to revise promotion and tenure policies to explicitly recognize community-engaged scholarship, including valuing long-term partnerships, co-authored and community-centered publications, and measurable community benefits. Alternative metrics beyond traditional bibliometrics, such as impact on community capacity and partnership sustainability, can also be integrated into evaluation processes. Mentorship and career development programs tailored for early-career academics engaged in CBR foster resilience within the academic system.

Academic institutions primarily designed for traditional academic environments may not align with the evolving, relational approach that community-based research requires, with resources and infrastructure geared toward rigid structures and standardized methodologies [50]. Research ethics boards often concentrate on non-maleficence while underemphasizing justice-based imperatives requiring participatory methods, overlooking community-level considerations such as mutual capacity building, community relevance, and equitable benefit sharing that community-based review processes explicitly address [89]. These institutional barriers may hinder CBR publication and limit its recognition as legitimate scholarship.

The emotional dimensions of community-based research generate significant labor for researchers and community members through managing tensions between institutional requirements and community needs, navigating interpersonal relationships across power differentials, and supporting communities through potentially retraumatizing research topics [2, 3]. This underrecognized challenge involves building trust, facilitating difficult conversations, and managing ethical complexities that rarely receive adequate attention in research planning, methodological training, or resource allocation [1, 14]. Institutions and funders need to formally recognize emotional labor as a critical component of community-engaged research, allocating resources for training, support services, and developing guidelines around ethical emotional labor to prepare researchers and community partners for sustainable collaboration. Viewed collectively, the conceptual frameworks synthesized in this review reinforce that meaningful community engagement depends not only on the actions of researchers and communities but also on institutional policies, governance structures, funding mechanisms, and academic cultures that enable equitable, reciprocal, and sustainable partnerships.

Conclusions

CBR represents a fundamental paradigm shift away from extractive academic inquiry toward collaborative knowledge production grounded in partnership, equity, and social justice. This focus reflects the distinctive nature of CBR, where equitable partnership is not simply a methodological choice but a defining principle of the research enterprise. Although community engagement and participatory approaches extend beyond CBR and are increasingly applied in health services, clinical, and implementation research, this review examined their application through selected conceptual frameworks in relation to the distinctive relational, ethical, and practical challenges that characterize CBR. As articulated in this review, CBR positions communities not as passive subjects but as co-architects of research, ensuring that lived experience shapes research questions, methods, analysis, and the application of findings. Realizing CBR’s transformative potential requires clear recognition of its inherent complexities. Conducting research with, for, and by communities introduces profound relational and ethical challenges, such as building authentic trust, navigating historical and political contexts, addressing persistent power imbalances, ensuring genuine community consent, and practicing cultural humility, all requiring sustained reflexive practice. Co-defining priorities and co-designing research necessitates flexibility to overcome communication barriers, diverse research literacies, internal community dynamics, and tensions between urgent community action and academic rigor. Sustaining partnerships and impact requires addressing capacity constraints, fair compensation, long-term engagement beyond project cycles, combating research fatigue, and ensuring accessible knowledge translation. Critically, these challenges are compounded by systemic institutional barriers, including misaligned academic reward systems, disciplinary silos, restrictive funding structures, inadequate institutional support, and the frequently unrecognized emotional labor integral to ethical community work. CBR embodies not merely a methodological choice, but an ethical imperative aimed at promoting equity and social justice. The challenges it entails are not peripheral but central to dismantling extractive research legacies and fostering authentic partnerships grounded in mutual respect. Within this context, the framework mapping presented in this review provides the core analytical contribution, demonstrating how different engagement-oriented conceptual frameworks variably address these challenges across stages of the community-based research process. By integrating robust theoretical frameworks with committed institutional reform, researchers and communities can co-create knowledge that is truly of, by, and for the populations it endeavors to serve—advancing a more just and equitable research enterprise.

Author contributions

TCT conceived of the paper. TCT, NC, RM, and MMHR drafted the paper. All authors provided critical input to multiple drafts. NRa and NRu critically reviewed the manuscript and provided important perspectives as community member researchers. TCT act as the guarantor to this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.