Resources

Methods: Standard approaches to research with communities impacted by environmental injustice often prioritizes institutions as experts rather than those with lived experience. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) emphasizes equitable and meaningful participation of community members, stakeholders, and researchers and has evolved into a widely accepted interdisciplinary methodological framework for research addressing health and social inequalities. In this case study, we use a “talk story” research dialogue between principal investigators and partner organization leaders of a non-profit that serves communities impacted by an oil refinery’s environmental pollution to reflect on relationship and implementation strategies used in the Air Quality Investigation for Research Equity (AIRE) project. Talk story utilizes dialogue and shared personal narratives to generate meaningful data through a relational process. Rooted in principles of Indigenous story work—including mutuality, reciprocal exchange, and deep relational accountability—dialogues center on a particular question or topic but unfold conversationally. Using our talk story dialogue as data, we conducted thematic analysis to illuminate the relational and concrete strategies that led to successful implementation of this CBPR project. We use mycelium as a metaphor for describing intricate mutualistic relationship-building, collaborative design, and implementation processes throughout the AIRE project.

Results: Thematic analysis of the talk story dialogue revealed 5 primary themes describing the relational strategies we used from design through dissemination: 1) Rooted relationships, 2) Cultural humility and responsiveness, 3) Destabilizing power inequities, 4) Impacts of the legacy of trauma, and 5) Long term relational commitments.

Discussion: Documenting and reflecting on this CBPR project, we illustrate how embodying principles of CBPR through prioritizing building relationships of trust over time and centering community members impacted by air and environmental pollution at all stages of the research process can lead to successful research implementation and achievement of mutually beneficial shared goals. Our aim is to use this case study to develop a template of relational strategies for scholars working with and for communities impacted by environmental injustice.

Water’s cultural significance shapes norms, practices, and beliefs, influencing how communities manage, use, and sustain it through traditional knowledge, customs, and stewardship. Yet in academia, integrating fields such as cultural studies, sociology, anthropology, and geography into hydrologic research remains a challenge. Innovative approaches are needed to foster meaningful researcher–community engagement and align research with the cultural values of water. This article introduces the term hydro-cultural values and presents the hydro-ethnographic applied research (HEAR) approach, developed from two community hydrology projects on Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi. HEAR synthesizes community-based participatory research (CBPR) and ethnography, employing semiethnographic methods to embed Indigenous hydrocultural values into applied hydrologic research, supporting the stewardship of culturally significant water resources. By shifting from ethnography that merely documents culture to an approach that applies ethnographic data to guide hydrologic research, HEAR promotes equitable applied research outcomes and advances a more inclusive model for researcher–community relationships. This approach offers a pathway for hydrologic research to align with the expressed interests of Indigenous communities, ensuring that research not only respects but also integrates the cultural significance of water.

Background: Co-creation engages diverse stakeholders, including marginalized populations, in collaborative problem-solving to enhance engagement and develop contextually appropriate solutions. It is increasingly recognized as a way to democratize research and improve the impact of interventions, services, and policies. However, the lack of synthesized evidence on co-creation methods limits methodological rigor and the establishment of best practices. This review aimed to identify co-creation methods in academic literature and analyze their characteristics, target groups, and associated benefits and challenges.

Methods: This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. The search was conducted in the Health CASCADE database v1.5 (including CINAHL, PubMed, and 17 additional databases via ProQuest) from January 1970 to March 2022. Data was aggregated and summarized, with qualitative data analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis approach.

Results: The review included 266 articles, identifying 248 distinct co-creation methods published between 1998 and 2022. Most methods were rooted in participatory paradigms (147 methods), with 49 methods derived from co-approaches like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, and 11 from community-based health promotion and action research. Methods were applied across 40 target populations, including children, adults, and marginalized groups. Many methods (62.3%) were delivered face-to-face, with 40 articles incorporating digital tools. Thematic analysis revealed nine benefits, such as enhanced creativity, empowerment, and improved communication, and six challenges, including resource constraints and systemic and structural barriers.

Conclusion: This review emphasizes the importance of robust documentation and analysis of co-creation methods to inform their application in public health. Findings support the development of collaborative co-creation processes that are responsive to the needs of diverse populations, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness and cultural sensitivity of the outcomes. This review highlights the potential of co-creation methods to promote equity and inclusion while emphasizing the importance of evaluating and selecting methods tailored to specific objectives, offering a critical resource for planning, conducting, and evaluating co-creation projects.

Purpose: In Decolonizing Methodologies (1999), Linda Tuhiwai Smith asserted that “the master’s tools of colonization will not work to decolonize what the master built.” Smith challenged Indigenous researchers to fashion “new tools for the purpose of decolonizing and Indigenous tools that can revitalize Indigenous knowledge” (p. 22). A quarter of a century later, this paper reflects on the powerful impact that Smith’s call to action has had upon recent generations of bright, politically active and culturally grounded Native Hawaiian researchers, many of whom are innovatively turning to the Native epistemologies embedded in our traditional cultural practices to craft (k)new research tools and methodologies.

Design/methodology/approach: This paper features three Native Hawaiian scholars who are simultaneously hula and mele (traditional Hawaiian dance and song) practitioners and who instinctively turned to their hula training to guide and indigenize their research practice.

Findings: Each of these three scholars describes how they creatively applied the Hawaiian epistemologies embedded in their hula and mele training to fashion (k)new, Indigenous methodologies to guide (1) their research conduct, (2) their data analyses or interpretations and (3) the presentation of their research findings, respectively.

Originality/value: These three Hawaiian scholars and hula practitioners represent a larger groundswell of Native Hawaiian researchers who are bravely and creatively drawing upon the traditional wisdom and sensitivities embedded in our cultural practices to craft and wield (k)new research tools to “dismantle the master’s house” (Lorde, 1981) and build an Indigenous hale (house) of our own.