Relationships between Community-Based Processes for Research Ethics Review and Institution-Based IRBs: A National Study

Shore, Nancy; Drew, Elaine M.; Brazauskas, Ruta; Seifer, Sarena D.

doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.13

Cited by 37 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16,49,58–61 Authors suggest that IRBs (1) are concerned with individuals and not with community well-being 16,49,61 ; (2) require that all research procedures be approved before research has begun, even though CBPR is dynamic and often requires continual assessment and ongoing adjustments to research protocols 58,59 and (3) are unfamiliar with CBPR, which may use nontraditional research procedures and hold different beliefs about features IRBs prioritize in their evaluations (e.g., assumptions about data ownership). 50,59,60 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Community-Engaged Research: A Literature Review

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health research has relied on ethical principles, such as those of the Belmont Report, to protect the rights and well-being of research participants. Community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, must also consider the rights and wellbeing of communities. This requires additional ethical considerations that have been extensively discussed but not synthesized in the CBPR literature. We conducted a comprehensive thematic literature review and summarized empirically grounded discussions of ethics in CBPR, with a focus on the value of the Belmont principles in CBPR, additional essential components of ethical CBPR, the ethical challenges CBPR practitioners face, and strategies to ensure that CBPR meets ethical standards. Our study provides a foundation for developing a working definition and a conceptual model of ethical CBPR.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Community-Engaged Research: A Literature Review

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that it is an open question whether community psychology needs its own statement of ethical principles, it seemed useful to go back to the beginning, so to speak, and explore our views of the fundamental ethical concepts outlined in the Belmont Report. In choosing to ground our analysis in the Belmont Report, we also acknowledge and engage critiques of this report, particularly those from the multidisciplinary literature on community‐based participatory research (CBPR) (Flicker, Travers, Guta, McDonald, & Meagher, ; Mikesall, Bromley, & Khodyakov, ; Ross et al., ; Shore, ; Shore, Drew, Brazauskas, & Seifer, ; Weijer & Emanuel, ). CBPR scholars have observed that as a document originally intended primarily for medical and laboratory‐based studies, the Belmont Report was not written with community‐based research in mind, and thus, it is necessary to expand our thinking to consider what these core Principles could mean in field‐based, social action research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complicating Narratives: Defining and Deconstructing Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology

Campbell

Morris

2017

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this concluding essay, we review the case studies presented in this Special Issue and examine whether community psychology has a distinctive approach to defining and resolving the core ethical canons of the Belmont Report (1979): Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. For two of these Principles-Respect for Persons and Beneficence-community psychologists elaborate upon and extend their definitions to consider their meaning in community-based, social justice-oriented research. The field's approach to Respect for Persons is multilevel in nature; in addition to respecting individuals and their diverse identities, we also have obligations to respect our community partnerships, the communities with whom we work, and the populations and cultures represented in our work. Similarly, for community psychologists, Beneficence is a multilevel construct that considers risks and benefits at the group, community, and cultural levels of analysis. With respect to Justice, community psychologists' views of our ethical responsibilities are qualitatively different in meaning from the original Belmont Report and from disciplinary-specific interpretations of this principle in ethical guidance documents from psychology, sociology, and evaluation. Our valuing of social change demands that we contribute to individual and group empowerment and liberation, and in so doing, that we avoid collusion with oppressive systems. Thus, we define our ethical responsibilities for promoting Justice as more action-oriented than do other disciplines. The essay closes with an exploration of future directions for developing a comprehensive ethical framework for community psychology.

show abstract

“…There is also growing attention to IRB review of CEnR (Flicker et al, 2007; Malone et al, 2006; Shore, 2007; Shore et al, 2011; Silverstein et al, 2008). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Views of Academic and Community Partners Regarding Participant Protections and Research Integrity: A Pilot Focus Group Study

Anderson

2013

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When community partners have direct interaction with human research participants, it is important to consider potential threats to participant protections and research integrity. Few studies have directly compared the views of academic and community partners. This pilot focus group study explores the views of academic partners (APs) and community partners (CPs) regarding challenges to the protection of research participants and research integrity in community-engaged research (CEnR). Data are analyzed to understand how APs and CPs define and think about ethical problems and how meaning and analysis may differ between the two groups. Findings have implications for the development of research ethics training materials for academic-community research partnerships and IRBs; best practices for CEnR; and future research on ethical issues in CEnR.

show abstract

Relationships between Community-Based Processes for Research Ethics Review and Institution-Based IRBs: A National Study

Cited by 37 publications

References 15 publications

Ethical Community-Engaged Research: A Literature Review

Ethical Community-Engaged Research: A Literature Review

Complicating Narratives: Defining and Deconstructing Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology

Views of Academic and Community Partners Regarding Participant Protections and Research Integrity: A Pilot Focus Group Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About