Community engagement is increasingly becoming an integral part of research. “Community-engaged research” (CEnR) introduces new stakeholders as well as unique challenges to the protection of participants and the integrity of the research process. We—a group of representatives of CTSA-funded institutions and others who share expertise in research ethics and CEnR—have identified gaps in the literature regarding (1) ethical issues unique to CEnR; (2) the particular instructional needs of academic investigators, community research partners, and IRB members; and (3) best practices for teaching research ethics. This paper presents what we know, as well as what we still need to learn, in order to develop quality research ethics educational materials tailored to the full range of stakeholder groups in CEnR.
AlexanderL. & RichmanK. (2008). Ethical dilemmas in evaluations using indigenous research workers. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(1), 73–85.
2.
AndersonE. (2010). The role of community-based organizations in the recruitment of human subjects: Ethical considerations. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 20–21.
3.
AntesA.MurphyS.WaplesE.MumfordM.BrownR.ConnellyS., & DevenportL. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 19(5), 379–402.
4.
AntesA.WangX.MumfordM.BrownR.ConnellyS., & DevenportL. (2010). Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has had on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 519–526.
5.
BeanS. & SilvaD. (2010). Betwixt and between: Peer recruiter proximity in community-based research. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 18–19.
6.
BraunschweigerP. & GoodmanK. (2007). The CITI program: An international online resource for education in human subjects protection and the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 861–864.
7.
BruggeD. & ColeA. (2003). A case study of community-based participatory research ethics: The Healthy Public Housing Initiative. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(4), 485–501.
8.
BruggeD.KapunanP.Babcock-DunningL.MatloffR.Cagua-KooD.OkorohE. (2010). Developing methods to compare low-education community-based and university-based survey teams. Health Promotion Practice, 11(5), 645–653.
9.
BuchananD.MillerF., & WallersteinN. (1997). Ethical issues in community-based participatory research: Balancing rigorous research with community participation in community intervention studies. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 1(2), 153–160.
10.
Clinical and Translational Science Awards Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement. (2011). Principles of community engagement, 2nd ed.Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Food and Drug Administration. (2011). Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/html/2011-18792.htm.
13.
DolorR. J.SmithP. C., & NealeA. V. (2008). Institutional review board training for community practices: Advice from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality practice-based research network listserv. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 21(4), 345–352.
14.
DownieJ. & CottrellB. (2001). Community-based research ethics review: Reflections on experience and recommendations for action. Health Law Review, 10(1), 8–17.
15.
DuBoisJ.Bailey-BurchB.BustillosD.CampbellJ.CottlerL.FisherC. (2011). Ethical issues in mental health research: The case for community engagement. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24, 208–214.
16.
EdwardsK.LundC., & GibsonN. (2008). Ethical validity: Expecting the unexpected in community-based research. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 6(3), 17–30.
17.
EpsteinS. (2008). The rise of “recruitmentology”: Clinical research, racial knowledge, and the politics of inclusion and difference. Social Studies of Science, 38(5), 801–832.
18.
FantuzzoJ.McWayneC., & ChildsS. (2006). Scientist-community collaborations: A dynamic tension between rights and responsibilities. In TrimbleJ. & FisherC. (Eds.), The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations and communities (pp. 27–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
FisherC. (2012). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
FisherC. (2005). Participant consultation: Ethical insights into parental permission and confidentiality procedures for policy relevant research with youth. In LernerR.JacobsF., & WertliebD. (Eds.), Applied developmental science: An advanced textbook (pp. 113–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
FisherC. (1999). Relational ethics and research with vulnerable populations. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission (Ed.), Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity, vol. II (pp. 29–49). Rockville, MD.
22.
FisherC.BuschN.BrownJ., & JoppD. (2012). Applied developmental science, social justice, and socio-political well-being. Applied Developmental Science, 16(1), 54–64.
23.
FisherC. & GoodmanS. (2009). Goodness-of-fit ethics for non-intervention research involving dangerous and illegal behaviors. In BuchananD.FisherC. & GableL. (Eds.), Research wtih high-risk populations: Balancing science, ethics, and law (pp. 25–46). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
24.
FisherC. & RagsdaleK. (2006). A goodness-of-fit ethics for multicultural research. In TrimbleJ. & FisherC. (Eds.), The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations and communities (pp. 3–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
FisherC.TrueG.AlexanderL., & FriedA. (2012). Moral distress and the responsible conduct of community-based drug use research. Paper presented at the Quest for Research Excellence, March 15–16, Washington, DC.
26.
FisherC. & WallaceS. (2000). Through the community looking glass: Re-evaluating the ethical and policy implications of research on adolescent risk and psychopathology. Ethics & Behavior, 10(2), 99–118.
27.
FlickerS.TraversR.GutaA.McDonaldS., & MeagherA. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health, 84(4), 478–493.
28.
GellerG.BoyceA.FordD. E., & SugarmanJ. (2010). Beyond “compliance”: The role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Academic Medicine, 85(8), 1296–1302.
29.
GikonyoC.BejonP.MarshV., & MolyneuxS. (2008). Taking social relationships seriously: Lessons learned from the informed consent practices of a vaccine trial on the Kenyan coast. Social Science and Medicine, 67(5), 708–720.
30.
Goldberg-FreemanC.KassN.TraceyP.RossG.Bates-HopkinsB.PurnellL. (2007). “You've got to understand community”: Community perceptions on “breaking the disconnect” between researchers and communities. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 1(3), 231–240.
31.
GoodmanM.DiasJ., & StaffordJ. (2010). Increasing research literacy in minority communities: CARES Fellows Training Program. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(4), 33–40.
32.
GrossmanD.AgarwalI.BiggsV., & BrennemanG. (2004). Ethical considerations in research with socially identifiable populations. Pediatrics, 113(1), 148–151.
33.
GutaA.WilsonM.FlickerS.TraversR.MasonC.WenyeveG., & O'CampoP. (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.
34.
HeitmanE. & McKieranL. (2004). Module 4: Community-based practice and research: Collaboration and sharing power. In JenningsB.KahnJ.MastroianniA., & ParkerL. (Eds.), Ethics and public health: Model curriculum. Washington, DC: Association of Schools of Public Health.
35.
HeitmanE.OlsenC.AnestidouL., & BulgerR. (2007). New graduate students' baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 838–845.
36.
HoodN.BrewerT.JacksonR., & WewersM. (2010). Survey of community engagement in NIH-funded research. Clinical and Translational Science, 3(1), 19–22.
37.
HyattR.GuteD.PirieA.PageH.VasquezI., & DalembertF. (2009). Transferring knowledge about human subjects protections and the role of institutional review boards in a community-based participatory research project. American Journal of Public Health, 99(Suppl. 3), S526–S531.
38.
KhanlouN. & PeterE. (2005). Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science and Medicine, 60(10), 2333–2340.
39.
LakesK.VaughanE.JonesM.BurkeW.BakerD., & SwansonJ. (2012). Diverse perceptions of the informed consent process: Implications for the recruitment and participation of diverse communities in the national children's study. American Journal of Community Psycholog y, 49(1–2), 215–232.
40.
LandyD. & SharpR. (2010). Examining the potential for exploitation by local intermediaries. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 12–13.
41.
LevineR. (1992). Clinical trials and physicians as double agents. Yale Journal of Biological Medicine, 65(2), 65–74.
42.
LindauS.MakelarskiJ.ChinM.DesautelsS.JohnsonD.JohnsonW. (2011). Building community-engaged health research and discovery infrastructure on the South Side of Chicago: Science in service to community priorities. Preventive Medicine, 52(3–4), 200–207.
43.
MaloneR.YergerV.McGruderC., & FroelicherE. (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.
44.
MerrittM.LabriqueA.KatzJ.RashidM.WestK., & PettitJ. (2010). A field training guide for human subjects research ethics. PLoS Medicine, 7(10), 1–4.
45.
MinklerM. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education and Research, 31(6), 684–697.
46.
MohattG. & ThomasL. (2006). “I wonder, why would you do it that way?” Ethical dilemmas in doing participatory research with Alaska Native communities. In TrimbleJ. & FisherC. (Eds.), The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations and communities (pp. 93–116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
MolyneuxS.KamuyaD., & MarshV. (2010). Community members employed on research projects face crucial, often under-recognized, ethical dilemmas. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 24–25.
48.
National Center for Research Resources, Division for Clinical Research Resources. (2005). Research Subject Advocates: Guidelines for the General Clinical Research Centers Program. Bethesda, MD.
49.
NeillK. (2003). Research Subject Advocate: A new protector of research participants. Accountability in Research, 10(3), 159–174.
50.
O'LonerganT. (2003). Creative solutions: Research Subject Advocates: Increase in reports of human subject protection deficiencies bring scrutiny as well as more efforts at education and support. Protecting Human Subjects, 3(8), 10–11.
51.
PhillipsT. (2010). Protecting the subject: PDR and the potential for compromised consent. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 14–15.
52.
QuinnS. (2004). Ethics in public health research: Protecting human subjects: The role of community advisory boards. American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 918–922.
53.
RamseyP. (1970). The patient as person. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
RossL.LoupA.NelsonR.BotkinJ.KostR.SmithG., & GehlertS. (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), 19–31.
55.
RossL.LoupA.NelsonR.BotkinJ.KostR.SmithG., & GehlertS. (2010b). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: A research ethics framework. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 5–17.
56.
RossL.LoupA.NelsonR.BotkinJ.KostR.SmithG., & GehlertS. (2010c). Nine key functions for a human subjects protection program for community-engaged research: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 33–47.
57.
ShoreN. (2007). Community-based participatory research and the ethics review process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(1), 31–41.
58.
ShoreN. (2006). Re-conceptualizing the Belmont Report: A community-based participatory research perspective. Journal of Community Practice, 14(4), 5–26.
59.
SilkaL. & Renault-CaragianesP. (2006). Community-university research partnerships: Devising a model for ethical engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(2), 171–183.
60.
SimonC. & MosavelM. (2010). Community members as recruiters of human subjects: Ethical considerations. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 3–11.
61.
SolomonS. & PiechowskiP. (2011). Developing community partner training: Regulations and relationships. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(2), 23–30.
62.
StraussR.SenguptaS.QuinnS.GeoppingerJ.SpauldingC.KegelesS., & MillettG. (2001). The role of community advisory boards: Involving communities in the informed consent process. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1938–1943.
63.
SunderlandN.CatalanoT.KendallE.McAuliffeD., & ChenowethL. (2011). Exploring the concept of moral distress with community-based researchers: An Australian study. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(1), 73–85.
64.
TerpstraJ.ColemanK.SimonG., & NebekerC. (2011). The role of community health workers (CHWs) in health promotion research: Ethical challenges and practical solutions. Health Promotion Practice, 12(1), 86–93.
65.
TrueG.AlexanderL., & FisherC. (2012). Addressing ethical challenges in urban drug addiction research: Lessons from community research workers. Paper presented at the Quest for Research Excellence, March 15–16, Washington, DC.
66.
TrueG.AlexanderL., & RichmanK. (2011). Misbehaviors of front-line research personnel and the integrity of community-based research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(2), 3–12.
67.
UlrichC.HamricA., & GradyC. (2010). Moral distress: A growing problem in the health professions?Hastings Center Report, 40(1), 20–22.
68.
WeijerC. (1999). Protecting communities in research: Philosophical and pragmatic challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 8(4), 501–513.
WolfL. (2010). The research ethics committee is not the enemy: Oversight of community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(4), 77–86.
71.
YawnB.GrahamD.BertramS.KurlandM.DietrichA.WollanP. (2009). Practice-based research network studies and institutional review boards: Two new issues. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 22(4), 453–460.
