Analyzing the Relationship Between Researchers and Rural Communities

Learning how to conduct and communicate research in rural communities is an important step to ensuring successful environmental education and awareness more broadly. This skill may be particularly important when working with communities affected by toxic chemical exposure. In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in the United States to preserve the environment and human health. EPA's Superfund program provides funding to sites at which hazardous waste has made the area dangerous to live. Once an area is designated as a Superfund site, the federal government and EPA clean up waste and protect citizens from further harm. Using Libby, Montana, as a case study, this research analyzes the community history, previous research conducted in Libby, and community perceptions of research to develop strategies for successful communication about environmental issues.

In 2002, EPA named the rural community of Libby, Montana a Superfund site due to detrimental levels of asbestos, a toxic chemical that can cause various illnesses such as lung cancer. For nearly seventy years, the town mined and processed vermiculite ore, which was unknowingly contaminated with asbestos. Since becoming a Superfund site, Libby has been a focus of research seeking to understand the social, physical, and economic effects of human exposure to hazardous chemicals.

The research team, consisting of investigators from a local health clinic and professors from Montana State University College of Nursing, implemented surveys to Libby community members, conducted interviews with Libby residents and past researchers, and analyzed historical research and publications in Libby. This mixed methods approach involved community assessment, two structured surveys with a combined 247 responses, two interviews (one with 3 researchers, one with 18 community members), and media events. After data collection, the research team transcribed the recorded interviews and analyzed the interview and survey responses to identify common themes and concepts within the four research priorities: 1) community's history, 2) research infrastructure, 3) communication resources, and 4) participant engagement in the research.

This study determined that rural characteristics—such as self-sufficiency and independence—combined with poor communication strategies between researchers and residents influence rural communities to be skeptical of outside researchers.

When considering community history with research, analysis of archival data and surveys demonstrated that past experiences heavily influenced current participation, perception, and engagement. The researchers identified significant communication barriers between policymakers, scientists, and the community that led to mistrust. Next, the study investigated existing research infrastructure and identified the Center for Asbestos Related-Disease (CARD) as an important gateway between the community and outside researchers. However, the authors felt that this was underutilized because, despite a heavy EPA presence, many residents were skeptical and showed distrust of the agency. The third priority, communication resources, identified the discrepancy between communication tools. Survey results and interviews identified the local newspaper as being the main source of information for the majority of residents. However, none of the interviewed researchers listed local newspapers as a method of communication and instead named others, such as scientific journals. Members of rural communities often do not have access to the researchers' publications and are more likely to read a newspaper than a scientific journal. Lastly, community engagement surveys determined that residents were more likely to participate in the research if they perceived the possibility that their health or community would benefit.

Although many residents participated in this study, the authors only interviewed three researchers who had studied the asbestos contamination in Libby. Due to the small sample size, the authors cannot assume that all researchers working in Superfund Sites agree with the interviewed researchers in Libby regarding communication and research infrastructure. Similarly, the findings from this study may not be generalizable to all rural communities due to each community's unique context.

Effective communication strategies between researchers and the community are critical to achieve research goals. Rural communities tend to be mistrusting of outside researchers, thus the authors stress the importance of constant and open communication to build trust. By strengthening relationships, researchers and study participants alike can benefit from research and improve environmental education and awareness.