Journal of Research Practice

Volume 13, Issue 2, Article R2, 2017

Review:
Key Components of Collaborative Research in the Context of Environmental Health: A Scoping Review

Osnat Wine
Department of Pediatrics
University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA
osnat@ualberta.ca

Sarah Ambrose
Department of Health Sciences
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
vyjayanthi.ambrose@carleton.ca

Sandy Campbell
John W. Scott Library
University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA
sandy.campbell@ualberta.ca

Paul J. Villeneuve
Department of Health Sciences
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Paul.villeneuve@carleton.ca

Katharina Kovacs Burns
School of Public Health
University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA
kathy.kovacsburns@ualberta.ca

Alvaro Osornio Vargas
Department of Pediatrics
University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA
osornio@ualberta.ca

The DoMiNO Team

Abstract

In a collaborative research process, the participation of interdisciplinary researchers and multi-sectoral stakeholders supports the co-creation, translation, and exchange of new knowledge. Following a scoping review methodology, we explored the collaborative research processes in the specific context of environment and human health research. Initially, our literature search strategy identified 1,328 publications. After several phases of reviewing and applying screening criteria to titles, abstracts, and full text, 45 publications were selected for final review. Data were charted by different topics and then collated, summarized, and analyzed thematically. From the different experiences and research approaches analyzed, we identified comprehensive details of the key components, facilitators, challenges, and best practices that impact the collaborative research process. Specifically, we identified the following seven emerging themes: (a) allocating time and resources, (b) addressing disciplinary and sectoral issues, (c) building relationships, (d) ensuring representation, (e) embedding participation in the research, (f) supporting ongoing collaboration, and (g) developing knowledge translation and exchange.

Index Terms: environmental health; collaborative research process; scoping review; interdisciplinary research; knowledge co-production; knowledge broker; integrated knowledge translation

Suggested Citation: Wine, O., Ambrose, S., Campbell, S., Villeneuve, P. J., Kovacs Burns, K., Osornio Vargas, A., & The DoMiNO Team. (2017). Key components of collaborative research in the context of environmental health: A scoping review. Journal of Research Practice, 13(2), Article R2. Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/577/477

1. Background

The global burden of disease attributed to environmental factors was estimated by the World Health Organization to be close to 22% and even higher in children (Prüss-Ustün, Wolf, Corvalán, Bos, & Neira, 2016). Environmental health research aims to explain how the environment (i.e., the biological, chemical, physical, and social factors external to a person) impacts human health (for more detailed definition of this and other related terms, see Appendix A). This is an evolving and complex research field aimed at creating new knowledge to support and influence practice, policy, or further research and ultimately, to improve human health (Finn & O’Fallon, 2015). Environmental health research considers different levels of investigation, ranging from genetic and cellular effects to population health. It also applies multiple methods of inquiry and expertise from various disciplines and sectors. Current trends in research are also shifting from exploring the relationship between a single exposure and one health outcome of interest to exploring the complex interplay between multiple exposures and outcomes, which imply a web of causation (Briggs, 2008; Dixon & Dixon, 2002; Dominici, Peng, Barr, & Bell, 2010; Mauderly et al., 2010).

With this type of research, there is an expectation of additional complexity due to the high level of uncertainty accompanying its conceptualization (e.g., incomplete or aggregated data), the analysis of results (e.g., confidence levels, exploratory nature of the research), and communication of the results (e.g., no research is perfect, and no results are absolute) (Briggs, Sabel, & Lee, 2009). Furthermore, this field of research is highly context-sensitive, since it deals with health-related risk issues that can have significant social, political, environmental, and economic impacts (Briggs, 2008). These impacts can have repercussions beyond the immediately affected communities as the policy requirements for change often have a significantly broader economic and political cost. For example, the use of coal to generate electricity that would presumably create jobs to stimulate the economy, also contributes to air pollution and occupation disorders, which may have severe impacts on the global climate and population health (Lipton & Meier, 2017).

All these factors contribute to the unique aspects related to the study of the environment and human health. Interdisciplinary and collaborative processes were identified as appropriate approaches for co-creating and co-producing new knowledge and practices, and knowledge translation (Briggs, 2008; Fazey & Evely, 2013). This emphasizes the contribution of engaged scholarship among academics, practitioners, and stakeholders to respond to big questions (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006) and facilitate the process of creating and translating new knowledge to inform change (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2012). Additionally, due to the sensitive context of environmental issues and human health, there is a need for an elaborated decision-making process that defines the knowledge translation plan (Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR], 2016) (e.g., deliverables, messages, audiences, and strategies) and how the new knowledge should be used (Hage, Leroy, & Petersen, 2010) for the benefit of communities and researchers (Brown, Deletic, & Wong, 2015. The expectation is that co-produced knowledge is more likely to be accepted and used by knowledge users for action, implementation, decision and policy making, and identification of future research needs (Annerstedt, 2010; Cook et al., 2013; Reed, 2008).

Collaborative and interdisciplinary research may appear ideal; however, this research tends to present practical and conceptual challenges. In this context, there is a need to further understand and learn how to best support collaborative and interdisciplinary research (Krebbekx, Harting, & Stronks, 2012; Meadow et al., 2015). Knowledge on the collaborative process is somewhat fragmented in this area. As well, we are not aware of any publication that solely addresses the collaborative process in the context of environmental health or provides a specific framework for the kind of research conducted in this context.

Thus, in this scoping review, our aim was to explore and identify the extent and nature of the scholarly literature regarding research studies that address or describe experiences or research on the collaborative research processes in the context of environmental health research, and with the intent of capturing the following:

1. The key components, facilitators, barriers, and challenges of collaborative research processes in environmental health research context.
2. Potential research gaps in the existing literature regarding collaborative processes in this context.

We expected that collating and summarizing the knowledge and experiences identified in the literature and disseminating our findings would support better understanding of the processes and the accompanying challenges. Our review is intended to provide an overall view of what is known on the collaborative research process and its key components. More specifically, this review will be useful for the collaborative process of an ongoing environment and health project conducted by our research team (i.e., the Data Mining and Neonatal Outcomes [DoMiNO] research team, see DoMiNO, n.d.), as well as the work of other such health research partnerships.

2. Methods

Based on our inability to easily locate studies and publications on collaborative research and other processes specifically related to the environmental health context, the study team opted to conduct a scoping review instead of a systematic review. Scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews mainly by the nature of the research question and a concern for the quality of the studies to be included. A scoping review tends to be broader in scope than a systematic review as it aims to map the field in question and identify literature gaps, whereas systematic reviews aim to generate conclusions related to a narrow research question. Systematic reviews involve an assessment of the quality of the studies to be included; scoping reviews may not involve that kind of assessment. A scoping review would support the need to map out what key collaborative process components, concepts, theories, practices, and related topics had been published and where there were identified gaps (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Brien, Lorenzetti, Lewis, Kennedy, & Ghali, 2010). Once we have a clear understanding of what existed in the literature, we could formulate more specific questions related to collaborative processes in the environmental health context.

We implemented the scoping review framework stages suggested by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien (2010). The authors of this review, composed of diverse environment, health, and knowledge translation expertise, were involved at the different stages of the review process. Here, we outline the stages we followed.

Stage 1. Identifying the Research Question

The purpose of our scoping review was to identify what the literature describes regarding collaborative processes in the environmental health research context. Our guiding question was: What are the specific components that influence the collaborative research process in environmental health research?

Stage 2. Identifying Relevant Studies

Relevant literature was searched in August 2015 by an expert librarian (third author, Sandy Campbell), who identified related publications containing the concepts: “environmental health/pollution,” “knowledge co-creation/co-production,” and “knowledge translation.” Individual searches were executed on the following databases using key search terms that responded to these concepts: Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL(EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), SocINDEX (EBSCO), Scopus, Pollution Abstracts (ProQuest), Environment Complete (EBSCO), ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Global. Dissertations were included, except when the same author and topic were also identified in journal publications. The full extent of all databases included material published any time before August 2015, with follow-up search adjustments made appropriately for each database. Additional references were identified through citations or other known publications. References were exported to the RefWorks citation manager.

Stage 3. Study Selection

The publication selection process is described using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews) flow diagram (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009, see Figure 1). Publication selection started by removing any duplicates. Titles and abstracts where then reviewed for relevance by two reviewers (first and second authors, Osnat Wine and Sarah Ambrose) sorted into Yes/No/Maybe lists, based on selection criteria (Table 1). The two relevancy lists were then compared. Publications that did not match between the two reviewers or were classified as Maybe were discussed by them, and with a third member of the authors’ team (sixth author, Alvaro Osornio Vargas), until consensus was reached. Selected items were fully read and a second phase selection took place considering the selection criteria. Finally, 45 publications were included in the scoping review.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram describing the search strategy.

Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Publications

Stage 4. Charting the Data

Data from the selected publications were extracted into a spreadsheet. Information gathered included the publications’ characteristics and context, collaboration characteristics, and the collaborative process facilitators, challenges, and best practices. Extraction was done by one reviewer (second author, Sarah Ambrose) and, in an iterative review process, the extracted data were reviewed by a second reviewer (first author, Osnat Wine).

Stage 5. Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results

The extracted data were collated and summarized. We also conducted thematic analysis of the identified data on the collaborative process facilitators, challenges, and best practices. The identified emerging themes are reported in the results section.

Stage 6. Consultation With Potential Knowledge Users and Stakeholders

Consultation with stakeholders took place at different times during the scoping review process, in order to share preliminary findings, and to provide opportunities for feedback and advice regarding the scoping review design, resources, findings, and meanings. These stakeholders were mainly environment and health interdisciplinary researchers and research partners involved with the Data Mining and Neonatal Outcomes (DoMiNO) research project mentioned above (DoMiNO, n.d.).

3. Findings

3.1. Publication Characteristics and Context

We identified 45 out of 1,328 publications for final review, describing various aspects of collaborative research in environmental health (Figure 1). The identified publications were published between the years 1998-2015, and included original research, reviews, and commentaries from different locations. Table 2 provides a list of all identified publications and their detailed characteristics (location, context, collaborative account/type, and collaborative approach). A list of 57 publications that were excluded from this review in the second screening phase is provided in Appendix B.

Our search process identified publications that originated from diverse research fields, such as health, environment, biology, education, policy, environmental management and assessment, and environmental justice. The context of environment and human health was discussed differently by the publications. Most publications referred to exposures and health outcomes as comprehensive/broad concepts (n = 14). Some indicated a specific health outcome (e.g., respiratory morbidities, cancer); others explored specific exposures already known to impact health (e.g., air pollution, toxicants, or multiple exposures) (n = 31).

Table 2. Details on the 45 Publications Included in the Scoping Review

Note. CBPR: Community-based participatory research

3.2. Collaboration Characteristics in Environmental Health Research

Our selection criteria required that all the selected publications should describe projects involving participation of partners from various sectors in the research process. Partners involved in the research included academic researchers, community members (public and leaders), advocacy groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), policy and decision makers, government agency representatives, and other various stakeholder groups (e.g., church, farmers, and private sector). The engagement of stakeholders and knowledge users varied throughout different phases of the research, such as problem formulation, data gathering, analysis, and knowledge translation and dissemination. The collaborative processes described in the publications included:

(a) Descriptions of various research experiences in the context of environmental health research, which included accounts about strategies, partners, evaluation, perceptions, policy promotion, ethical considerations, stakeholder involvement, governance, promotion and support to policy and action, and environmental risk impact and assessment (n = 31).

(b) Research on the principles or frameworks for best practices related to collaborative research such as ethics, disclosure, health disparities, building and maintaining partnerships, and informing future research (n = 14).

The publications reviewed included two main collaborative approaches: community-based participatory research (CBPR), also described as community partnership research (n = 25), and transdisciplinary research (n = 6). No specific collaborative approach was identified in the other 14 publications. One publication presented a project described as both CBPR and transdisciplinary research.

We identified that the purposes for collaboration in the publications were mainly for co-producing new knowledge and/or knowledge translation and exchange, that is, initiatives aimed at cultivating mutually-beneficial connections between researchers and knowledge users, thus establishing a link between environmental health research and the improvement of health research, policies, programs, and practices.

3.3. The Collaborative Process in Environmental Health Research

All 45 publications provided descriptions of research collaboration—offering either a reflection on their own collaborative research experience or the results of their research on the nature of collaborative research process, exploring its principles. The publications provide details on the different components that influenced the collaborative research process, covering factors both external and internal to research projects.

3.3.1. External Components

Some publications discussed the external contextual factors that could impact the collaborative research approach, such as institutional (n = 15) and socio-political (n = 9) factors. Authors of these publications identified institutional factors as critical in supporting collaborative research and the partners engaged. These factors include: (a) available funding to support interdisciplinary and collaborative research, (b) acknowledgments and reward systems (e.g., performance reviews), (c) adequate training on collaborative and interdisciplinary research to those participating in collaborative research, as well as (d) institutional priority and support services for collaborative research (e.g., ethics review boards that advocate sharing results with participants, and/or policies that promote hiring community members for research purposes). Other external factors identified in the publications were socio-political in nature, which included the political climate as well as social and cultural structures, especially engagement structures to facilitate consultation with stakeholders.

3.3.2. Internal Components

Authors of some of the publications also identified components, which refer to internal collaborative research processes. They described facilitators and challenges that influence team development in different phases. Some publications provided advice on the best practices based on research, experiences, and lessons learned. In response to our research question, we coded the literature and identified the following emerging themes with respect to internal factors influencing the collaborative process in environmental health research:

1. Allocating time and resources
2. Addressing disciplinary and sectoral issues
3. Building relationships
4. Ensuring representation
5. Embedding participation in the research
6. Supporting ongoing collaboration
7. Developing knowledge translation and exchange

The themes are described below.

Theme 1. Allocating Time and Resources

Time and resources were identified as instrumental. It was acknowledged that collaborative approaches were time consuming because they required a longer time to build and maintain trusting relationships, support ongoing and inclusive engagement, and mediate conflicts. Additionally, the need for individual time commitment was challenged by competing demands. The process also required adequate funding and planning to support activities such as relationship-building (e.g., face-to-face meetings, travel, and knowledge translation and exchange). Funds were usually required to cover the long timeframe necessary to reach these goals. Another challenge related to resources was the distribution of funds among partners, which can be a source of conflict.

Theme 2. Addressing Disciplinary and Sectoral Issues

The authors of the reviewed publications acknowledged that the collaborative process builds on the participation of representatives from different disciplines, with diverse expertise and experiences. It was suggested that leadership of the research project should be built with key participants and that additional knowledge users and staff should be considered to enhance diversity of perspectives (e.g., support staff, community organizers, and activists). They also described how the interdisciplinary context presents conflicts from differences in cultures, ideas, goals, priorities, languages (e.g., terminologies), and communication styles. Furthermore, learning from each other, conducting the ongoing research, mediating assumptions and views, and integrating different concepts of research were also identified as challenges. Other disciplinary challenges referred to disciplinary control (i.e., domination of one discipline over other disciplines), traditionally focused disciplinary training, and the lack of experience and guidance on working with other disciplines/sectors and perspectives. Some also reported issues in maintaining discipline legitimacy, scientific independence, credibility, and the ability to demonstrate value and impact. Studies recommended avoiding disciplinary dominance and encouraged the willingness to challenge norms, take in new ideas, adopting a holistic understanding of environmental issues, promoting understanding of interdisciplinary expectations (i.e., how the research will be conducted), and accepting different disciplinary cultures, languages, and methods. It was also suggested that more training opportunities in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research should be offered.

Theme 3. Building Relationships

Developing strong and trustworthy relationships within research teams were identified as essential to supporting the collaborative process. Moreover, studies described that partner engagement could help build research capacity: building on competence, interest and prior relationships, and by focusing on knowledge co-production. However, authors of the reviewed publications reported that developing and maintaining strong, trusting, and respectful relationships were a challenge that demanded teams to learn how to communicate effectively. This challenge was especially great if team members had prior negative experiences. Building and maintaining relationships considering human constraints (e.g., availability, personality, etc.), power imbalances within the team, and personnel turnover were other obstacles identified. Continuous investment in building trust and sustaining long-term relationships was noted as essential for the collaborative process and important factors that could help balance power issues.

Theme 4. Ensuring Representation

Authors of the reviewed publications identified that the representation of different sectors is instrumental to the collaborative research process. However, some publications described difficulty in identifying and obtaining adequate disciplinary or sectoral/community representation to create a diverse team. In some cases, this was due to an inaccessibility of different stakeholders, and in other cases, communities with previous bad experiences with research projects did not want to get involved in research again (e.g., aboriginal communities).

Theme 5. Embedding Participation in the Research

It was suggested that mitigating the challenges and obstacles that collaborative research presents can be done by embedding participation in the research. Participation includes identifying and involving partners early, and ensuring their participation throughout all research phases, including jointly framing the research questions and responding to user needs in the publication process. It was advised to build on previous mutual experiences to support the collaborative process. Additionally, it was recommended to perform a thorough preliminary background work including contextual factors and policy processes in order to better frame participation in the research.

Theme 6. Supporting On-going Collaboration

Reviewed publications reported that supporting on-going engagement as well as sustaining relationships are essential components of the collaborative process. They advise that this can be achieved by having continuous dialogue, two-way communication, meetings in person, and providing multiple opportunities for collaboration. Providing learning opportunities (context, languages, and methods) was also identified as essential. However, maintaining the ongoing collaboration was identified by some as challenging with regard to mediating conflicts and debates, involving partners in all research phases, creating an equal working environment, defining the level of partners’ commitment, keeping an iterative and collaborative process, and balancing research and action. Some suggestions to overcome these challenges were that the partners identify and clarify early on the common and different goals, strategies, limitations, and model of participation. Inclusion of a social scientist who could support effective collaboration and formative evaluation of the collaborative process, governance, and decision making was recommended. Publications also recommended that the collaborative process should build on feedback and critical reflection, partners’ joint development of operating norms, obtaining consensus or agreement during and at the end of the project, and allowing the process to be creative and flexible for changes in the research protocol.

Theme 7. Developing Knowledge Translation and Exchange

Another significant aspect identified in the publications related to different components that supported or challenged the process of developing knowledge translation. The publications acknowledged that the research design should involve knowledge translation and exchange from an early stage of the research process. Negotiating knowledge translation strategies as well as assessing knowledge user needs should be maintained throughout the research project. Reviewed publications also recommended keeping clear communication strategies about the knowledge translation plans, committing to implementation, delivering tangible outcomes to users early in the project, as well as sharing findings in an accessible and relevant format for different audiences. However, some publications identified that the ethics approval process involved in sharing findings with participants and the lag time between knowledge exchange and outcomes were challenging. Additional challenges identified included differing views of the research products, ownership of the data and results, and the dissemination of results. Some publications suggested early agreement on data sharing with participants and using knowledge brokers whose role as intermediators would be to support the dissemination process and activities that could mitigate conflicts.

Finally, the publications also discussed the importance of passion, commitment, motivation, respect, and shared values and goals in positively contributing to and facilitating the collaborative process, and helping to overcome some of the barriers and challenges.

4. Discussion

The selected publications addressed the collaborative research processes in the context of environmental health research. We identified contributions from different research fields including, health, environmental management, and other disciplines, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of environmental health research. Moreover, what we have found in this scoping review for key components of collaborative research may apply not only to environmental health research but generally to other collaborative research contexts.

The collaborative and interdisciplinary approach (i.e., participation of different disciplines and stakeholders) has been acknowledged to benefit the breadth and depth of research in this field by integrating different perspectives, methods, and experiences (Annerstedt, 2010; Matso, Dix, Chicoski, Hernandez, & Schubel, 2008; Podestá, Natenzon, Hidalgo, & Toranzo, 2013) as well as contributing to the relevancy and usability of the research (Campbell et al., 2015; Cook, 2008; Reed, 2008). Partners benefit from learning experiences, contributing to issues of individual and societal interest, and building long lasting relationships. However, challenges result from the differences among partners and among the disciplines or organizations they come from (Armstrong & Jackson-Smith, 2013). Careful planning and framing of the research and the ongoing partnership can help to mediate differences. One approach to enhance interdisciplinary and collaborative capacity is training of students, faculty, and other partners in the theory and practice of interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and collaborative research (Ramirez-Andreotta, Brusseau, Artiola, Maier, & Gandolfi, 2014; Repko & Szostak, 2017) or by supporting the development of transdisciplinary individuals (Morales, 2017).

Interdisciplinary and collaborative research approaches are increasingly practiced and being promoted by funding agencies (Ramirez-Andreotta et al., 2014; Rylance, 2015). In the environmental health research context, which is an emerging field of research, and still grappling with the complexities and challenges inherent in its interdisciplinary and collaborative research approach, this requires attention from researchers, institutions, publishers, and funders (Brown, Deletic, & Wong, 2015). As more research team collaboration is required for credible research results, there will be more need to examine the significant components of collaborative research.

4.1. Contextual Barriers

The identified publications addressed contextual and external barriers, which may hamper collaborative research processes. These include institutional, political, social, and cultural barriers. For example, the political atmosphere can dictate if environmental health research is funded or not, and whether or not agencies or stakeholders would be included as partners. Social constructs can also impact the nature of research and partnerships. For example, stakeholders from different backgrounds may not view the partnership and research success in the same way.

Institutional support for academics and for different organizational representatives, in terms of funding and acknowledging the time requirements, is crucial to enable collaborative research and sustain collaborative research teams. The lack of suitable reward systems in place for those engaged in collaborative research could be challenging (given greater time commitment from those involved in such research and different outcomes of interdisciplinary collaborative research compared to discipline-based research). Reviewed publications suggest the need for new reward systems for researchers engaged in collaborative research, viewing these researchers as scholars of outreach (Ramirez-Andreotta et al., 2014). Although there has been ongoing discussion around these contextual issues, they continue to influence current collaborative research practice and still require attention.

Thus, on a policy and organizational level, changes may be required in the culture and practice of research support agencies. Specifically, changes are required in the allocation of funding for collaborative research projects, ongoing support of their sustainability, adjustments of expectations around research progress and outcomes, establishment of reward systems, and support for training programs that focus on collaborative and interdisciplinary research.

4.2. Approaches to Research Collaboration

There are several approaches to research collaboration, including: transdisciplinary research, participatory research, community-based participatory research (CBPR), integrated knowledge translation, team science, mode 2 research, and engaged scholarship. While each approach has a somewhat different emphasis on the various elements of the collaborative process, these may also share common elements. The main collaborative approaches we identified in this review include transdisciplinary research and CBPR. Many of the identified publications have used a CBPR approach.

CBPR is a well-defined collaborative research approach aiming to respond to environmental health problems. The principles of CBPR include a research partnership approach with community stakeholders, building on the strengths and resources of the community and responding to community needs. It involves power sharing with the community, so as to build an equitable relationship among the collaboration partners. CBPR aims to achieve community engagement in all phases of the research, including the dissemination phase. Through co-learning and capacity building, CBPR aims to integrate knowledge gained with action which may benefit all partners (Cook, 2008; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Israel, Parker et al., 2005; Parker et al., 2003). In this review, the issue of power imbalance among research partners was raised only in publications using CBPR (Arcury, Quandt, & Dearry, 2001; Downs et al., 2009; Israel, Schulz et al., 1998, 2001; Johnson et al., 2014; Metzler & Higgins, 2003). Power imbalance could arise in all types of research teams and may be based on many factors (e.g., seniority, gender, discipline, sector, etc.).

Other issues identified mainly in CBPR publications refer to the following challenges: (a) inaccessibility of partners from affected community members, (b) balance between participation and research project requirements demanding too much time investment, (c) developing leadership within the community so that community members can head the community’s engagement in the research, (d) lack of clarity about the ownership of data and results, (e) balance between action and research (in many cases, academics are cautious with research results while community stakeholders push for action), (f) conflicts around funds distribution among the research partners, and (g) the challenge of overcoming communities’ previous bad experience with research engagement.

Another collaborative approach identified was transdisciplinary research, which is a collaborative interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral research approach where the focus is on addressing major real-world problems. It seeks to integrate knowledge and perspectives from different scientific disciplines as well as nonscientific resources (Repko, 2008). It has some participatory elements and it seeks the unity of knowledge beyond disciplines (Hadorn et al., 2008).

4.3. Practices to Support Collaborative Research

This scoping review provided comprehensive description of the key components of the collaborative research process. Specifically, it identified the different facilitators and challenges and offered lessons, strategies, and advice for supporting collaborative research. We cannot identify one component that could be the sole factor to influence the process; rather, it is a complex process that requires attention to the different components. The themes we describe, although described separately, are all interconnected, and depend on each other. Different research project may have different emphases on these components.

Through the different themes described above, the publications reviewed offered good practices to optimize and strengthen the collaborative research process, many of which should be considered by collaborative research teams. However, the publications reviewed do not completely address questions regarding the applicability and feasibility of their recommendations. For example, it is unclear whether partners would always embrace engagement, collaboration, and training, even if ample opportunities for these were provided. The impact of team size and the distribution of team members across different locations on the collaborative process is unclear (this point emerged from our consultations with the DoMiNO team members, see DoMiNO, n.d.). Additionally, the partners’ difficulty in maximizing engagement given the other demands on their time was not fully explored. In many cases, locations, busy schedules, priorities, work habits, and other factors appeared to prevent partners from participating in the collaborative activities. Equal participation is not always possible but the principle of equity should be pursued and early decisions should be reached on the level of participation targeted and operating norms (Cargo & Mercer, 2008). One of the suggestions was to leave the management of the collaborative process to experts (i.e., social scientists) (Meadow et al., 2015; Ramirez-Andreotta et al., 2014) or to a neutral collaborative research expert (Matso et al., 2008). This may not be feasible in every case. Alternatively, we could consider including collaborative research as part of academic training, so that the relevant expertise may be available more broadly.

4.4. Knowledge Translation

Another significant component that was identified by this review was the development of knowledge translation and exchange and the collaborative process that contributes to it. The reviewed publications portray the collaborative approach as means to knowledge creation and translation into policy or practice. Whereas past paradigms left knowledge creation to academics and knowledge was transferred as a product (Gibbons, 2000), the emerging paradigm treats knowledge as a result of co-production or co-creation (Mauser et al., 2013; Rycroft-Malone et al., 2016; Voorberg, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2015). The publications identified specific references to the inclusion of knowledge translation as part of the collaborative process to promote the use of the new knowledge created, which is an inherent component of environmental health research. Some of the publications acknowledged the contribution of collaborative approaches and the partners’ role in supporting knowledge translation. Few elaborated on the process of building knowledge translation through the different phases of the research (Jack et al., 2010; Reed, Stringer, Fazey, Evely, & Kruijsen, 2014; Strosnider, Zhou, Balluz, & Qualters, 2014) and discussed the complex issue of sharing results (Schell et al., 2005; Ferris & Sass-Kortsak, 2011; Harding et al., 2012; Parkes, Eyles, & Benwell, 2004; Pereira et al., 2009; Ramirez-Andreotta et al., 2014). Very few publications suggested the inclusion of knowledge brokers as those who could help disseminate results and serve as cultural brokers (Jack et al., 2010), despite recent attention to their roles in various domains (Dobbins et al., 2009; Lam, 2017).

Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to learn more about the development of knowledge translation planning and the process of decision making (i.e., determination of goals and audiences, messages, and strategies). It would be especially important in a context such as environmental health characterised by conflicting priorities.

5. Conclusions

This review contributes to an understanding of the collaborative research processes in the context of environmental health. Several key lessons were derived from this review:

1. Understanding the collaborative process can be enhanced by learning from different collaborative research approaches.
2. The collaborative research process is a complex web of interrelated components.
3. The main components of collaborative research pertain to allocating time and resources, addressing disciplinary and sectoral issues, building relationships, ensuring representation, embedding participation in the research, and supporting on-going collaboration.
4. Planning for knowledge translation is an important part of the collaborative research process.

A review of the short and long-term impact of the collaborative approaches in the study of the environmental health would complement our review. Other future research could focus on the gaps identified here which include: the applicability and feasibility of best practices for research collaborations as well as knowledge translation development in research partnerships; and stakeholder engagement and contribution to the knowledge translation planning. These gaps may be answered through learnings from other real-life experiences.

Our own experience as participants in a collaborative research project motivated this review and ended up informing our collaborative activities. The significant components of collaborative research identified here may be of interest and use not only to individuals involved in the area of environmental health research but also to researchers across other areas and sectors.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lisa Caroll for assisting with preliminary literature searches and the DoMiNO Team for providing feedback for this review and sharing real life experiences. This work has been supported by CIHR/NSERC Collaborative Health Research Program (2013-2018). The first author, Osnat Wine was partially supported by the Women and Children’s Health Research Institute (WCHRI) Student Scholarship (2015-2017).

References

Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Annerstedt, M., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Garrido, P., . . . Schlyter, P. (2013). Solving problems in social-ecological systems: Definition, practice and barriers of transdisciplinary research. Ambio, 42(2), 254-265.

Annerstedt, M. (2010). Transdisciplinarity as an inference technique to achieve a better understanding in the health and environmental sciences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(6), 2692-2707.

Arcury, T. A., Quandt, S. A., & Dearry, A. (2001). Farmworker pesticide exposure and community-eased participation research: Rationale and practical applications. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(June), 429-434.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.

Armstrong, A., & Jackson-Smith, D. (2013). Forms and levels of integration: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary team-building project. Journal of Research Practice, 9(1), Article M1. Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/335/297

Austin, D. (2010). Confronting environmental challenges on the US-Mexico border: long-term community-based research and community service learning in a binational partnership. Journal of Community Practice, 18, 361-395.

Bharadwaj, L. (2014). A framework for building research partnerships with First Nations communities. Environmental Health Insights, 8, 15-25.

Boon, W. P. C., Chappin, M. M. H., & Perenboom, J. (2014). Balancing divergence and convergence in transdisciplinary research teams. Environmental Science and Policy, 40, 57-68.

Brien, S. E., Lorenzetti, D. L., Lewis, S., Kennedy, J., & Ghali, W. A. (2010). Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implementation Science, 5(1), 2.

Briggs, D. J. (2008). A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks. Environmental Health, 7, 61.

Briggs, D. J., Sabel, C. E., & Lee, K. (2009). Uncertainty in epidemiology and health risk and impact assessment. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 31, 189-203.

Brown, P., Brody, J. G., Morello-Frosch, R., Tovar, J., Zota, A. R., & Rudel, R. A. (2012). Measuring the success of community science: The Northern California household exposure study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(3), 326-331.

Brown, R. R., Deletic, A., & Wong T. H. (2015). How to catalyse collaboration. Nature, 525(7569), 315-317.

Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C. W., Kosson, D. S., Halverson, J., Siekaniec, G., . . . Barnes, D. (2007). Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: Continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(1), 232-244.

Burger, J., Goschfeld, M., & Pletnikoff, K. (2009). Collaboration versus communication: The Department of Energy’s Amchitka Island and the Aleut community. Environmental Research, 109(4), 503-510.

Campbell, C. A., Lefroy, E. C., Caddy-Retalic, S., Bax, N., Doherty, P. J., Douglas, M. M., . . . West, J. (2015). Designing environmental research for impact. Science of the Total Environment, 534, 4-13.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2016). About us. Retrieved January 28, 2018, from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html

Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 325-50.

Center for Collaborative Research for an Equitable California. (2010). What is equity-oriented research? Retrieved February 6, 2018, from https://ccrec.ucsc.edu/node/807

Collman, G. W. (2014). Community-based approaches to environmental health research around the globe. Reviews on Environmental Health, 29(1-2), 125-128.

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., . . . Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291-1294.

Conrad, P. A., Meek, L. A., & Dumit, J. (2013). Operationalizing a one health approach to global health challenges. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 36(3), 211-216.

Cook, B., Atkinson, M., Chalmers, H., Comins, L., Cooksley, S., Deans, N., . . . Litke, S. (2013). Interrogating participatory catchment organisations: Cases from Canada, New Zealand, Scotland and the Scottish-English Borderlands. The Geographical Journal, 179(3), 234-247.

Cook, W. K. (2008). Integrating research and action: a systematic review of community-based participatory research to address health disparities in environmental and occupational health in the USA. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(8), 668-676.

Corburn, J. (2007). Community knowledge in environmental health science: Co-producing policy expertise. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(2), 150-161.

Cummins, C., Doyle, J., Kindness, L., Lefthand, M. J., Bear Don’t Walk, U. J., Bends, A., . . . Eggers, M. J. (2011). Community-based participatory research in Indian country: Improving health through water quality research and awareness. Family and Community Health, 33(3), 166-174.

Dagenais, C., Laurendeau, M., & Briand-Lamarche, M. (2015). Knowledge brokering in public health: A critical analysis of the results of a qulaitative evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 53, 10-17.

Dixon, J. K., & Dixon, J. P. (2002). An integrative model for environmental health research. Advances in Nursing Science, 24(3), 43-57.

Dobbins, M., Robeson, P., Ciliska, D., Hanna, S., Cameron, R., O’Mara, L., . . . Mercer, S. (2009). A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implementation Science, 4, Article 23. Retrieved from https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-4-23

Dominici, F., Peng, R. D., Barr, C. D., & Bell, M. L. (2010). Protecting human health from air pollution. Epidemiology, 21(2), 187-194.

DoMiNO. (n.d.). Data mining and neonatal outcomes. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/domino/

Downs, T. J., Ross, L., Patton, S., Rulnick, S., Sinha, D., Mucciarone, D., . . . Anderson, E. (2009). Complexities of holistic community-based participatory research for a low income, multi-ethnic population exposed to multiple built-environment stressors in Worcester, Massachusetts. Environmental Research, 109(8), 1028-1040.

Fazey, I., & Evely, A. (2013). Knowledge exchange: A review and research agenda for environmental management. Environmental Conservation, 40(1), 19-36.

Ferris, L. E., & Sass-Kortsak, A. (2011). Sharing research findings with research participants and communities. International Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 2(3), 172-181.

Finn, S., & O’Fallon, L. (2015). The emergence of environmental health literacy-from its roots to its future potential. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(4), 495-501.

Garcia, A. P., Wallerstein, N., Hricko, A., Marquez, J. N., Logan, A., Nasser, E. G., & Minkler, M. (2013). THE (trade, health, environment) impact project: A community-based participatory research environmental justice case study. Environmental Justice, 6(1), 17-26.

Gibbons, M. (2000). Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 159-163.

Gonzalez, P. A., Minkler, M., Garcia, A. P., Gordon, M., Garzón, C., Palaniappan, M., . . . Beveridge, B. (2011). Community-based participatory research and policy advocacy to reduce diesel exposure in West Oakland, California. American Journal of Public Health, 101(Suppl. 1), 166-175.

Hadorn, G. H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joye, D., Pohl, C., . . . Zemp, E. (2008). The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. In G. H. Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, . . . E. Zemp (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 19-39). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Hage, M., Leroy, P., & Petersen, A. C. (2010). Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures, 42(3), 254-264.

Harding, A., Harper, B., Stone, D., Neill, C. O., Berger, P., & Harris, S. (2012). Conducting research with tribal communities: Sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(1), 6-10.

Haynes, E. N., Beidler, C., Wittberg, R., Meloncon, L., Parin, M., Kopras, E. J., . . . Dietrich, K. N. (2011). Developing a bidirectional academic-community partnership with an Appalachian-American community for environmental health research and risk communication. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(10), 1364-1372.

Israel, B. A., Parker, E. A., Rowe, Z., Salvatore, A., Minkler, M., López, J., . . . Halstead, S. (2005). Community-based participatory research: Lessons learned from the centers for children’s environmental health and disease prevention research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(10), 1463-1471.

Israel, B. A, Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 173-202.

Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (2001). Community-based participatory research: Policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research. Education for Health (Abingdon), 14(2), 182-197.

Jack, S. M., Brooks, S., Furgal, C. M., & Dobbins, M. (2010). Knowledge transfer and exchange processes for environmental health issues in Canadian Aboriginal communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(2), 651-674.

Johnson, S., Cardona, D., Gramling, B., Hamilton, C., Hoffmann, R., & Sabir, J. (2014). Engaging the for-profit sector in community-based participatory research: Lessons from the ground. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 8(4), 523-530.

Krebbekx, W., Harting, J., & Stronks, K. (2012). Does collaborative research enhance the integration of research, policy and practice? The case of the Dutch Health Broker Partnership. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 17(4), 219-226.

Lam, A. (2017). Boundary-crossing careers and the ‘third space of hybridity’: Career actors as knowledge brokers between creative arts and academia. Environment and Planning A. Published online before print, December 11, 2017.

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Lipton, E., & Meier, B. (2017, August 6). Under Trump, coal mining gets new life on U.S. lands. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/06/us/politics/under-trump-coal-mining-gets-new-life-on-us-lands.html

Matso, K. E., Dix, M. O., Chicoski, B., Hernandez, D. L., & Schubel, J. R. (2008). Establishing a minimum standard for collaborative research in federal environmental agencies. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 4(3), 362-368.

Mauderly, J. L., Burnett, R. T., Castillejos, M., Özkaynak, H., Samet, J. M., Stieb, D. M., . . . Wyzga, R. E. (2010). Is the air pollution health research community prepared to support a multipollutant air quality management framework? Inhalation Toxicology, 22(Suppl. 1), 1-19.

Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3-4), 420-431.

McCauley, L. A., Beltran, M., Phillips, J., Lasarev, M., & Sticker, D. (2001). The Oregon migrant farmworker community: An evolving model for participatory research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(Suppl. 3), 449-455.

Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G., & Wall, T. (2015). Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(2), 179-191.

Metzler, M., & Higgins, D. (2003). Addressing urban health in Detroit, New York City, and Seattle through community-based participatory research partnerships. American Journal of Public Health, 93(5), 803-811.

Minkler, M. (2010). Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 100(Suppl. 1), 81-87.

Minkler, M., Vasquez, V. B., & Shepard, P. (2006). Promoting environmental health policy through community based participatory research: A case study from Harlem, New York. Journal of Urban Health, 83(1), 101-110.

Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Education & Behavior, 35(1), 119-137.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.

Morales, M. M. (2017). Creating the transdisciplinary individual: Guiding principles rooted in studio pedagogy. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 6(1), 28-42.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2012). 2012-2017 Strategic plan: Advancing science, improving health: A plan for environmental health research. Retrieved from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/strategicplan/index.cfm

Nielsen, N. O. (2001). Ecosystem approaches to human health. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 17, S69-S75.

Parker, E. A., Israel, B. A., Williams, M., Brakefield-Caldwell, W., Lewis, T. C., Robins, T.,. . . Keeler, G. (2003). Community action against asthma: Examining the partnership process of a community-based participatory research project. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(7), 558-567.

Parkes, M., Eyles, R., & Benwell, G. (2004). Integration of ecology and health research at the catchment scale: The Taieri River catchment, New Zealand. Journal of Rural and Remote Environmental Health, 3(1), 1-17.

Pennell, K. G., Thompson, M., Rice, J. W., Senier, L., Brown, P., & Suuberg, E. (2013). Bridging research and environmental regulatory processes: The role of knowledge brokers. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(21), 10.

Pereira, A. G., Raes, F., Pedrosa, T. D. S., Rosa, P., Brodersen, S., Jørgensen, M. S., . . . Rea, J. (2009). Atmospheric composition change research: Time to go post-normal? Atmospheric Environment, 43(33), 5423-5432.

Podestá, G. P., Natenzon, C. E., Hidalgo, C., & Ruiz Toranzo, F. (2013). Interdisciplinary production of knowledge with participation of stakeholders: A case study of a collaborative project on climate variability, human decisions and agricultural ecosystems in the Argentine Pampas. Environmental Science and Policy, 26, 40-48.

Prüss-Ustün, A., Wolf, J., Corvalán, C., Bos, R., & Neira, M. (2016). Preventing disease through healthy environments: A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/204585/1/9789241565196_eng.pdf?ua=1

Ramirez-Andreotta, M. D., Brusseau, M. L., Artiola, J. F., Maier, R. M., & Gandolfi, A. J. (2014). Environmental research translation: Enhancing interactions with communities at contaminated sites. Science of the Total Environment, 497-498, 651-664.

Ravenscroft, J., Schell, L. M., & Cole, T. (2015). Applying the community partnership approach to human biology research. American Journal of Human Biology, 27(1), 6-15.

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.

Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., & Kruijsen, J. H. J. (2014). Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 146, 337-345.

Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Processes and theory. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2017). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (3rd ed.) Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Romero-Lankao, P., Borbor-Cordova, M., Abrutsky, R., Günther, G., Behrentz, E., & Dawidowsky, L. (2013). ADAPTE: A tale of diverse teams coming together to do issue-driven interdisciplinary research. Environmental Science and Policy, 26, 29-39.

Rosenthal, J. K., Sclar, E. D., Kinney, P. L., Knowlton, K., Crauderueff, R., & Brandt-Rauf, P. W. (2007). Links between the built environment, climate and population health: Interdisciplinary environmental change research in New York City. Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore, 36(10), 834-846. Retrieved from http://www.annals.edu.sg/PDF/36VolNo10Oct2007/V36N10p834.pdf

Rycroft-Malone, J., Burton, C. R., Bucknall, T., Graham, I. D., Hutchinson, A. M., & Stacey, D. (2016). Collaboration and co-production of knowledge in healthcare: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 5(4), 221-223.

Rylance, R. (2015). Grant giving: Global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity. Nature, 525, 313-315.

Schell, L. M., Ravenscroft, J., Cole, M., Jacobs, A., Newman, J., & Akwesasne Task Force on the Environment. (2005). Health disparities and toxicant exposure of Akwesasne Mohawk young adults: A partnership approach to research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(12), 1826.

Schell, L. M., Ravenscroft, J., Galo, M., & Denham, M. (2007). Advancing biocultural models by working with communities: A partnership approach. American Journal of Human Biology, 19(4), 511-524.

Schell, L. M., & Tarbel, A. (1998). A partnership study of PCBs and the health of Mohawk youth: Lessons from our past and guidleines. Environmental Health Perspectives Suppplemetnts, 106(3) 833-840.

Strosnider, H., Zhou, Y., Balluz, L., & Qualters, J. (2014). Engaging academia to advance the science and practice of environmental public health tracking. Environmental Research, 134, 474-481.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802-821.

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357.

Wing, S. (2002). Social responsibility and research ethics in community-driven studies of industrialized hog production. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5), 437-444.

Witten, K., Parkes, M., & Ramasubramanian, L. (2000). Participatory environmental health research in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Constraints and opportunities. Health Education & Behavior, 27(3), 371-384.

Appendix A:
Terms and Definitions Used in the Review

Appendix B:
Excluded Publications (n = 57), Phase 2 of Screening Process (Not Included in This Review)

Received 8 November 2017 | Accepted 16 December 2017 | Published 12 February 2018

Copyright © 2018 Journal of Research Practice and the authors