Co-Designing, Implementing, and Disseminating Research with Communities to Maximize Public Impact: Strategies from a Mixed Method Cluster RCT in Zimbabwe

Background

The SSWR 2026 Call for Papers challenges researchers to center and amplify the designs, methods, analysis, and means of dissemination that maximize the public impact of our scholarship. This call builds on a growing body of public impact scholarship literature urging social work researchers to engage in “intentional efforts to create social change through the translation and dissemination of research to nonacademic audiences" (Sliva et al., 2019, p.531). Importantly, McBride and colleagues (2019) advocated for an expanded conceptualization of public impact scholarship to encompass the entire research process from question development to study methods, yet the literature largely reflects the more narrow focus on communication and dissemination strategies once research is complete. Moreover, there is a dearth of literature offering concrete guidance for prioritizing public impact across all research stages. To begin addressing this gap, this presentation offers practical strategies and insights from a study that was co-designed, co-implemented, and co-analyzed with non-research community partners to address anti-oppressive research goals and enhance public impact.

Methods

A series of participatory strategies were utilized to collaboratively design, implement, and disseminate the research. First, study co-design with community partners in Zimbabwe involved: (1) Identifying research questions guided by community priorities, (2) Collectively establishing RCT randomization protocols and qualitative methods to be employed, (3) Community-driven selection of measures, and (4) Collaborative budgeting of research funds. Next, we co-implemented the study through (5) Collaborative data collection processes and community-guided feedback loops, (6) Establishing principles of data co-ownership; and (7) Participatory analysis and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data. Finally, co-dissemination involved (8) Development of a community-driven dissemination plan; and (9) Active participation by community partners in all dissemination products.

Results

Using these nine strategies, we successfully conducted a mixed-method cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating a culturally-tailored biopsychosocial intervention to enhance resilience among marginalized and trauma-affected youth (n=1,081) ages 13-17 in Zimbabwe. More broadly, the research co-design, co-implementation and co-dissemination process resulted in three key lessons for conducting public impact scholarship in a global context. First, this highly collaborative approach to engaging communities throughout the research endeavor is both time and resource intensive. This requires lengthened study timelines and significant time allocated for recurring check-ins and dialogue between researcher(s) and community partners. Second, balancing community priorities with Western notions of research rigor can be challenging, but is vitally important for public impact scholarship. Prioritizing trust building and establishing processes for shared decision making at the outset were instrumental. Finally, mutual capacity building—for the researcher and the community partners—is needed to maximize public engagement and impact. Additionally, decades of foreign aid and research projects giving lip service to collaboration can require significant, authentic effort to change expectations and narratives around international partnerships.

Conclusion and Implication

These strategies offer a roadmap for enhancing community-engaged global research. Social work is uniquely positioned to lead the academy in advancing public impact scholarship that centers communities from research project inception through dissemination, and this study offers one possible approach for doing so in an international research context.