AO: The analysts describe the process of community peer review as: “hiring a community member to the team; researching the social, cultural, and economic contexts of the community; identify the community; ensure skills for community conversation are in place; call the community meeting; conduct the community meeting; and analyze feedback for consent and refusal as important steps in the method of community peer review” (which I would argue is collaborative).
AO: The analysts note that “obtaining community-level consent requires paying attention to the subtle ways in which research practices are consented to or refused simultaneously and unevenly.” (5)
AO: The analysts argue that “refusal” allows “researchers to work together with community members to ensure academic interests are in line with community concerns.” (7) This is interesting as it raises the questions of interests and whose interests are represented (and how they are discussed and negotiated).
AO: The analysts note the importance of skills in facilitation, ethnographic field methods, and consensus - oriented decision making (11)
AO: “By directing our research so that it is more relevant to local needs and is responsive to existing power relations, community peer review offers similar gains to academic peer review.” (25)
