| Barriers Stereotypes feed distrust and ineffectiveness within the partnership. Community members were used to thinking of academics as people who come into their community to do research and then leave with little benefit to the community. Academics were used to thinking of community organizations that were driven by self-interest that could compromise scientific studies. Cultural differences affect perceptions of project stagnation and/or success. The academic culture was one of slow systemic change, with a single project being viewed as a part of a larger body of scientific work. Community partners were advocates and activists that needed data and information to affect social change on a much shorter timeline. Differences in communication styles hinder satisfaction with project progress. Academics were accustomed to conducting a good portion of their work using brief, impersonal forms of communication such as email or phone; whereas, community partners expected face-to-face meetings wtih personal interaction.
Competing demands for time and attention was seen as lack of commitment to the project. Scientists and community partners alive worked on PACE as one of many projects on their work plan. However, without clear communication of how the project was prioritized within the larger scope of work lead to perceived lack of commitment on both sides of both sides. Differences in orientation or proximity to traditional power structures (e.g. universities and government) lead to varying degrees of comfort with more direct and confrontational tactics. Often, researchers had personal and/or financial relationships with universities and political agencies that complicated their ability to speak directly against these institutions. Community partners on the other hand, with fewer connections felt the need and comfort with confrontational and inflammatory actions.
Differences in resources lead to differences in ability to complete project work. One example is the fact that many of the resarch partners had secretaries and accountants to take care of paperwork. However, community partners completed both the field and administrative work to keep the project moving on their end. Potential Solutions Clarify goals at the beginning of the partnership. This creates an understanding of the larger framework each partner is working in. Groups can anticipate the disagreements and compromises that may need to happen along the way. It is important that each partner has a clear understanding of expectations and working style of the other partners. Lengthy discussions at the beginning of the partnership can develop a process to preempt and mitigate differences and barriers that will crop up later in the project.Develop numerous ways for community partners to get involved in the project. The PACE project developed several ways for community partners to be involved in the project, depending on their capacity, time and interests. In addition to a community advisory committee, PACE held comunity forums, research trainings, and presentations. The variety of activities allowed for the broadest range of community involvement in the project. Develop multicultural sensitivity within the partnership by accepting cultural and personality differences, spending time to get to know one another in addition to spending time in the field, and appreciating the other partners' strengths. PACE members stressed the importance of face-to-face interaction. Academic partners would bring their families to weekend activities and meetings in the community and vice versa, community partners brought their families to the university for activities and meetings. These meetings provided time for social interaction as we as time to do the actual project work. Additionally, each side acknowledged and utilized the strengths of their partners: researchers wrote the academic paper with input from the community, and community partners'in-depth knowledge of the migrant worker camps and ways to approach them deepened the breadth of the academic study.
| 
