"Walking along beside the researcher": How Canadian REBs/ IRBs are responding to the needs of community-based participatory research

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 17-27

  Guta, Adrian ^a   Nixon, Stephanie ^a   Gahagan, Jacquie ^b   Fielden, Sarah ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Community based participatory research; Ethics review; Guidance; Relational review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; HUMAN; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC RELATIONS;

CANADA; COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; COMMUNITY-INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; ETHICS COMMITTEES; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS;

EID: 84858018434     PISSN: 15562646     EISSN: 15562654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.17     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ashcroft, R. & Pfeffer, N. (2001). Ethics behind closed doors: Do research ethics committees need secrecy? British Medical Journal, 322(7297), 1294-1296. (Pubitemid 32493967)
2. Askins, K. (2007). Codes, committees and other such conundrums! ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 350-359.
3. Baylis, F., Kenny, N. P., & Sherwin, S. (2008). A relational account of public health ethics. Public Health Ethics, 1(3), 196-209.
4. Bean, S. & Silva, D. S. (2010). Betwixt and between: Peer recruiter proximity in community-based research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 18-19.
5. Blake, M. K. (2007). Formality and friendship: Research ethics review and participatory action research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 411-421.
6. Bledsoe, C. H., Sherin, B., Galinsky, A. G., Headley, N. M., Heimer, C. A., Kjeldgaard, E., Lindgren, J. T., Miller, J. D., Roloff, M. E., & Uttal, D. H. (2007). Regulating creativity: Research and survival in the IRB iron cage. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 593-642.
7. Boser, S. (2006). Ethics and power in community-campus partnerships for research. Action Research, 4(1), 9-21.
8. Boser, S. (2007). Power, ethics, and the IRB: Dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1060-1074.
9. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998a). Thematic analysis: Coding as a process for transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998b). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
11. Bradley, M. (2007). Silenced for their own protection: How the IRB marginalizes those it feigns to protect. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 339-349.
12. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
13. Burke, G. S. (2005). Looking into the institutional review board: Observations from both sides of the table. The Journal of Nutrition, 135(4), 921-924. (Pubitemid 40464132)
14. Burklow, K. A. & Mills, L. C. (2009). Giving voice to underserved and culturally diverse groups using community-based participatory research. The Open Medical Education Journal, 2, 75-79.
15. Cahill, C. (2007). Repositioning ethical commitments: Participatory action research as a relational praxis of social change. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 360-373.
16. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010). Tri- Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa: Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics.
17. Clark, A., Prosser, J., & Wiles, R. (2010). Ethical issues in image-based research. Arts and Health, 2(1), 81-93.
18. Clark, N., Hunt, S., Jules, G., & Good, T. (2010). Ethical dilemmas in community-based research: Working with vulnerable youth in rural communities. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(4), 243-252.
19. Constantine, M. (2010). Disentangling methodologies: The ethics of traditional sampling methodologies, communitybased participatory research, and respondent-driven sampling. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 22-24.
20. Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
21. Devers, K. J. (1999). How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1153-1188.
22. Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3-29.
23. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1-11.
24. Fisher, C. B. (1997). A relational perspective on ethics-inscience decisionmaking for research with vulnerable populations. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 19(5), 1-4. (Pubitemid 127728735)
25. Flicker, S., & Guta, A. (2008). Ethical approaches to adolescent participation in sexual health research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(1), 3-10. (Pubitemid 350266381)
26. Flicker, S., Travers, R., Guta, A., Macdonald, S., & Meagher, A. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health, 84(4), 478-493. (Pubitemid 47075046)
27. Fox, N. J. (2003). Practice-based evidence: Towards collaborative and transgressive research. Sociology, 37(1), 81-102. (Pubitemid 36263493)
28. Glass, K. C. & Kaufert, J. (2007). Research ethics review and aboriginal community values: Can the two be reconciled? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(2), 25-40.
29. Guta, A., Wilson, M. G., Flicker, S., Travers, R., Mason, C., Wenyeve, G., & O'Campo, P. (2010). Are we asking the right questions? A review of Canadian REB practices in relation to community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(2), 35-46.
30. Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E., & Becker, A. (2001). Community-based participatory research: Policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research. Education for Health, 14(2), 182-197. (Pubitemid 32861408)
31. Jewkes, R. & Murcott, A. (1998). Community representatives: Representing the "community"? Social Science and Medicine, 46(7), 843-858.
32. King, N. M. P., Henderson, G., & Stein, J. (1999). Beyond regulations: Ethics in human subjects research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
33. Larkin, P. J., de Casterlé, B. D., & Schotsmans, P. (2008). A relational ethical dialogue with research ethics committees. Nursing Ethics, 15(2), 234-242.
34. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
35. Lincoln, Y. S. & Tierney, W. S. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219-234.
36. Mackenzie, C., McDowell, C., & Pittaway, E. (2007). Beyond "do no harm": The challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 299-319. (Pubitemid 47249554)
37. Mackenzie, C. & Stoljar, N. (1999). Relational autonomy feminist perspectives on automony, agency, and the social self (pp. xi, 314). Retrieved from http://link.library.utoronto.ca/eir/ EIRdetail.cfm?Resources-ID= 1046295&T=F.
38. Maclean, A. (2009). Autonomy, informed consent and medical law: A relational challenge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Malone, R. E., Yerger, V. B., & McGruder, C., & Froelicher, E. (2006). "It's like Tuskegee in reverse": A case study of ethical tensions in institutional review board review of community-based participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 96(11), 1914-1919. (Pubitemid 44655913)
40. Martin, D. (2007). Bureacratizing ethics: Institutional review boards and participatory research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 319-328.
41. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
42. Minkler, M. & Wallerstein, N. (2003). Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43. Ogden, R. (1999). Report on research ethics review in communitybased HIV/AIDS research. Vancouver, BC: Canadian HIV/ AIDS Legal Network under contract with AIDS Vancouver. Retrieved from http://cbr.cbrc.net/files/ 1029213009/Ogden%20 Ethics%20Report.pdf.
44. Reid, C. & Brief, E. (2009). Confronting condescending ethics: How community-based research challenges traditional approaches to consent, confidentiality, and capacity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7(1), 75-85.
45. Rivière, D. (2011). Looking from the outside/in: Re-thinking research ethics review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(3), 193-204.
46. Rolfe, G. (2005). Colliding discourses: Deconstructing the process of seeking ethical approval for a participatory evaluation project. NT Research (continued as Journal of Research in Nursing), 10(2), 231-233.
47. Ross, L. F., Loup, A., Nelson, R. M., Botkin, J. R., Kost, R., Smith, G. R., Jr., & Gehlert, S. (2010a). The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 19-32.
48. Ross, L. F., Loup, A., Nelson, R. M., Botkin, J. R., Kost, R., Smith, G. R., Jr., & Gehlert, S. (2010b). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: A research ethics framework. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 5-18.
49. Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. Ottawa: First Nations Centre, National Aboriginal Health Organization.
50. Shore, N. (2007a). Community-based participatory research and the ethics review process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(1), 31-42.
51. Shore, N. (2007b). Re-conceptualizing the Belmont Report: A community-based participatory research perspective. Journal of Community Practice, 14(4), 5-26.
52. Simon, C. & Mosavel, M. (2010). Community members as recruiters of human subjects: Ethical considerations. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 3-11.
53. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
54. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case study handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.), pp. 435-454. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
55. Stoljar, N. & Mackenzie, C. (2000). Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on automony, agency, and the social self. New York: Oxford University Press.
56. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/ humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html.
57. Wallerstein, N. & Duran, B. (2003). The conceptual, historical, and practice roots of community-based participatory research and related participatory traditions. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory health research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
58. Wallerstein, N. & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312-323.
59. Wang, C. C. & Redwood-Jones, Y. A. (2001). Photovoice ethics: Perspectives from Flint Photovoice. Health Education and Behavior, 28(5), 560-572. (Pubitemid 33602905)
60. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.), vol. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.