$/,!;(20:(:0<,",658:$/,!;(20:(:0<,",658:
&52;3, ;3),8 8:0*2,

:/0*(299;,90454+;*:04.533;40:?(9,+ (8:0*06(:58?:/0*(299;,90454+;*:04.533;40:?(9,+ (8:0*06(:58?
",9,(8*/(88(:0<,",<0,=5-:/,0:,8(:;8,",9,(8*/(88(:0<,",<0,=5-:/,0:,8(:;8,
8?9:(2=(49
%40<,890:?5-(2.(8?
*8?9:(2?,,.0:1=(4/5:3(02*53
/809:04,'(29/
%40<,890:?5-(2.(8?
*=(29/;*(2.(8?*(
5225=:/09(4+(++0:054(2=5819(:/::6949;=581945<(,+;:78
 (8:5-:/,#5*0(2'581533549(4+:/,#5*0525.?533549
",*533,4+,+ 0:(:054",*533,4+,+ 0:(:054
=(4'(29/:/0*(299;,90454+;*:04.533;40:?(9,+ (8:0*06(:58?",9,(8*/
(88(:0<,",<0,=5-:/,0:,8(:;8,
$/,!;(20:(:0<,",658:


/::69+5058.

$/098:0*2,09)85;./::5?5;-58-8,,(4+56,4(**,99)?:/,$/,!;(20:(:0<,",658:(:#%'5819:/(9),,4
(**,6:,+-5804*2;905404$/,!;(20:(:0<,",658:)?(4(;:/580@,+(+30409:8(:585-#%'581958358,
04-583(:05462,(9,*54:(*:49;=581945<(,+;
:/0*(299;,90454+;*:04.533;40:?(9,+ (8:0*06(:58?",9,(8*/:/0*(299;,90454+;*:04.533;40:?(9,+ (8:0*06(:58?",9,(8*/
(88(:0<,",<0,=5-:/,0:,8(:;8,(88(:0<,",<0,=5-:/,0:,8(:;8,
)9:8(*:)9:8(*:
533;40:?)(9,+6(8:0*06(:58?8,9,(8*/ "09(3,:/5+525.?04*8,(904.2?;9,+=0:/04:/,95*0(2
9*0,4*,9 "09(4;3)8,22(:,83:/(:,4*536(99,9(<(80,:?5-8,9,(8*/3,:/5+525.0,904*2;+04.
6(8:0*06(:58?8,9,(8*/6(8:0*06(:58?(*:0548,9,(8*/-,30409:6(8:0*06(:58?8,9,(8*/(*:0548,9,(8*/(4+
*522()58(:0<,047;08?:0:9*58,:/,?9/(8,B<,1,?(::80);:,90*533;40:?(9(;40:5-0+,4:0:?00(4
(6685(*/-58:/,<;24,8()2,(4+3(8.04(20@,+000*522()58(:054(4+,7;(26(8:4,89/06:/85;./5;::/,
,4:08,8,9,(8*/685*,990<(4,3,8.,4:C,>0)2,(4+0:,8(:0<,685*,99(4+<:/,8,9,(8*/685*,9909
.,(8,+:5=(8+95*0(2(*:054'/02,:/,8,09459/58:(.,5-20:,8(:;8,:/(:/0./20./:9:/,),4,B:9(4+
65:,4:0(25- "8,2(:0<,2?20::2,+09*;99054,>09:954:/,,:/0*(2099;,9(995*0(:,+=0:/:/,
3,:/5+525.?46(8:0*;2(8*;88,4:.(69=0:/04:/,20:,8(:;8,04*2;+,,:/0*(2.;0+(4*,040)(2(4*04.
*533;40:?<(2;,94,,+9(4+0+,4:0:?=0:/:/59,5-:/,04+0<0+;(2004,.5:0(:04.65=,8+?4(30*9(4+
8,2(:0549/069000=58104.=0:/9:0.3(:0@,+656;2(:05490<4,.5:0(:04.*54C0*:04.,:/0*(28,7;08,3,4:9
(4+,>6,*:(:0549-85349:0:;:054(2",<0,=5(8+9"9(4+<-(*020:(:04.95*0(2(*:054,3,8.04.-853
:/,B4+04.958 "A9*533,4+()2,.5(29(4+65:,4:0(2:5),8,(20@,+0:094,*,99(8?:5/(<,(358,
-;2953,+09*;990545-:/,,:/0*(2099;,9,4*5;4:,8,+=/02,0362,3,4:04.( "9:;+?;8:/,8(2(*15-
(=(8,4,99(4+*80:0*(28,C,*:054549;*/,:/0*(2*5490+,8(:05493(?6,86,:;(:,:/,<,8?9(3,685)2,39
:/093,:/5+525.?9,,19:5(++8,994(3,2?04,7;(20:?5668,99054(4+3(8.04(20@(:054$/,6;8659,5-
:/09(8:0*2,09:5685<0+,(4(88(:0<,8,<0,=5-:/,20:,8(:;8,:/(:0+,4:0B,9,:/0*(2099;,9:/(:3(?(809,
-853*54+;*:04. "9:;+0,9(4+:/,8,*533,4+(:0549)?8,9,(8*/,89:530:0.(:,9;*/*/(22,4.,9
,?=58+9,?=58+9
 "!;(20:(:0<,",9,(8*/:/0*(299;,9
8,(:0<,5335490*,49,8,(:0<,5335490*,49,
$/09=5810920*,49,+;4+,8(8,(:0<,533549::80);:05454*533,8*0(2#/(8,201,4:,84(:054(2
0*,49,
$/09(8:0*2,09(<(02()2,04$/,!;(20:(:0<,",658:/::6949;=581945<(,+;:78<52099
The Qualitative Report 2018 Volume 23, Number 2, Article 4, 369-386
Ethical Issues in Conducting Community-Based Participatory
Research: A Narrative Review of the Literature
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh
University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a methodology
increasingly used within the social sciences. CBPR is an umbrella term that
encompasses a variety of research methodologies, including participatory
research, participatory action research, feminist participatory research, action
research, and collaborative inquiry. At its core, they share five key attributes:
(i) community as a unit of identity; (ii) an approach for the vulnerable and
marginalized; (iii) collaboration and equal partnership throughout the entire
research process; (iv) an emergent, flexible, and iterative process; and (v) the
research process is geared toward social action. While there is no shortage of
literature that highlights the benefits and potential of CBPR, relatively little
discussion exists on the ethical issues associated with the methodology. In
particular, current gaps within the literature include ethical guidance in (i)
balancing community values, needs, and identity with those of the individual;
(ii) negotiating power dynamics and relationships; (iii) working with
stigmatized populations; (iv) negotiating conflicting ethical requirements and
expectations from Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); and (v) facilitating social
action emerging from the findings. For CBPR’s commendable goals and
potential to be realized, it is necessary to have a more fulsome discussion of the
ethical issues encountered while implementing a CBPR study. Further, a lack
of awareness and critical reflection on such ethical considerations may
perpetuate the very same problems this methodology seeks to address, namely,
inequality, oppression, and marginalization. The purpose of this article is to
provide a narrative review of the literature that identifies ethical issues that may
arise from conducting CBPR studies, and the recommendations by researchers
to mitigate such challenges. Keywords CBPR, Qualitative Research, Ethical
Issues
Introduction
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a methodology increasingly used
within the social sciences (Banks et al., 2013). CBPR emerged in the 1970s, in concert with
critical theories and social change movements, all of which started to influence knowledge
building in the social sciences (Healy, 2001). According to Minkler (2004), CBPR is a
methodology that is heavily influenced by the theoretical bases of Kurt Lewin’s (1948) theory
of action, Paulo Freire’s (1970) critical pedagogy, and other third world scholars whose aim
was to develop “revolutionary approaches to inquiry as a direct counter to the often
“colonizing” nature of research to which oppressed communities were subjected” (p. 686).
Lewin’s (1948) theory of action emphasizes “the active involvement in the research of those
affected by the problem under study through a cyclical process of fact-finding, action, and
reflection, leading to further inquiry and action for change” (Minkler, 2004, p. 686). Freire’s
(1970) critical pedagogy accentuates Conscientização, which he theorized was the first step of
370 The Qualitative Report 2018
"praxis," or the action of the oppressed to take action against oppression. Praxis at the collective
level produces social transformation (Freire, 1970).
CBPR is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of research methodologies,
including participatory research, participatory action research, feminist participatory research,
action research, and collaborative inquiry (Minkler, 2004). At its core, they share five key
attributes: (i) community as a unit of identity; (ii) an approach for the vulnerable and
marginalized; (iii) collaboration and equal partnership throughout the entire research process;
iv) an emergent, flexible, and iterative process; and (v) the research process is geared toward
social action.
CBPR is an approach that is widely endorsed among social work researchers, as it is
aligned with the profession’s core mission, values, and principles namely, the pursuit of social
justice, self-determination, empowerment, and capacity building, amongst others (Branom,
2012). CBPR, proposed as an alternative to traditional top-down methodologies, is often
heralded as a transformative grass-roots approach to research that can facilitate social change
particularly for disadvantaged groups and communities (Branom, 2012).
While there is no shortage of literature that highlights the benefits and potential of
CBPR, relatively little discussion exists on the ethical issues associated with the methodology
(Mikesell, Bromley, & Khodyakov, 2013). In particular, current gaps within the literature
include ethical guidance in (i) balancing community values, needs, and identity with those of
the individual; (ii) negotiating power dynamics and relationships; (iii) working with
stigmatized populations; (iv) negotiating conflicting ethical requirements and expectations
from Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); and (v) facilitating social action emerging from the
findings. For CBPR’s commendable goals and potential to be realized, it is necessary to have
a more fulsome discussion of the ethical issues encountered while implementing a CBPR study
(Nygreen, 2009). Further, a lack of awareness and critical reflection on such ethical
considerations may perpetuate the very same problems this methodology seeks to address,
namely, inequality, oppression, and marginalization.
The purpose of this article is to provide a narrative review of the literature that identifies
ethical issues that may arise from conducting CBPR studies, and the recommendations by
researchers to mitigate such challenges. Before presenting the methods, findings, and
discussion, we situate ourselves within this topic, by providing a brief overview of our
backgrounds, interests in the topic, and our investments and intentions for this paper.
Backgrounds of Authors
Crystal Kwan
I am a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary. My research
interests and experiences include a variety of topics within social work, specifically:
gerontology and social work, community and international development, social and public
policy, and green/environmental social work. Within each of these areas, my approach to
inquiry is more qualitative and participatory based (specifically, utilizing CBPR approaches).
My interests in CBPR studies emerged during my Masters of Social Work (MSW) program. I
enrolled in a course-based MSW program, because I initially had no interests in research (nor
did I believe I had an aptitude for it). Then, I was introduced to participatory methodologies
(such as CBPR) during a mandatory research course, and my perspective of research and its
possibilities changed. I embarked on a research based practicum for my final year, and
facilitated a CBPR study where I collaborated with eight local elders in the Philippines to
explore their perspectives of community organizing (Kwan & Walsh, 2013). It was during this
time that I experienced the disconnect between the ideals and theories of CBPR and the actual
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh 371
practice of the approach. Still, for my doctoral study, I continued to adopt a CBPR approach to
inquiry, but I wanted to ensure I re-approached the literature with a more critical lens and
understanding of CBPR and its potential, limitations, and risks, and especially the ethical
implications that may arise. This paper is a result of that endeavor. Initially, the purpose of the
paper was to better equip myself to navigate potential ethical issues that may arise whilst
conducting a CBPR study. However, my investment and intentions of this paper, now, are also
to contribute to a balanced scholarly discussion on CBPR that highlight its limitations (e.g.,
potential ethical implications) along with its potential. Such a balanced discussion is necessary,
in order for novice researchers (like myself) to be better equipped to facilitate a CBPR study
and for the approach itself to become a more accepted form of scholarly inquiry.
Christine A. Walsh
I am a Professor and Associate Dean (Research and Partnerships), Faculty of Social
Work, University of Calgary. In my program of research, I use art-informed, action-oriented
and community-based research methods to collaborate with vulnerable and marginalized
populations including: those impacted by trauma, homelessness and poverty, immigrants, older
adults, those involved in the justice system and Indigenous People. My research aims to
improve the lives and enhance social justice for disadvantaged populations. I am particularly
interested in examining the tensions between how participatory research is assessed by
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), described in the literature, and unfolds in the field.
Methods
We chose a narrative literature review as it can “serve to provoke thought and
controversy” and thus “may be an excellent venue for presenting philosophical perspectives
in a balanced manner” (Green, Johnson & Adams, 2001, p. 103). In July 2017, we conducted
a review in three databases: Social Services Abstract, Social Work Abstracts, and SocINDEX
with full text. We searched the databases for instances of community-based participatory
research (and variations of the term: CBPR, participatory research, participatory action
research, feminist participatory research, action research, and collaborative inquiry) and ethics
(and variations of the term: ethical considerations, ethical challenges, ethical dilemmas, and
ethical issues) in the abstract. Additional criteria were that the articles were in English and
published between January 2000 to July 2017. The search resulted in 995 articles. We removed
the duplicates, and then scanned the abstracts for relevancy. We identified the articles to be
relevant if they provided a definition of CBPR (or any of its variants) and discussed the ethical
issues relevant to this approach to inquiry. We did not exclude review and commentary type
articles, as we felt for the purposes of this narrative review, such articles can still shed critical
insight into the topic. Albeit, most of the articles were empirically grounded (e.g., based on an
actual CBPR study). From scanning the abstracts, we identified 35 articles that were included
in this review. To be comprehensive, we conducted a further search in Google Scholar,
whereby we found an additional five articles and included them in the final review. Thus, a
total of 40 articles comprised the sample included in this review section.
We analyzed each article, by first reading the entirety of its contents and noting general
comments about the article related to the topic (ethical issues whilst conducting CBPR). Then,
upon the second reading, we extracted specific data (and inputted it into an excel spreadsheet)
which included: descriptive characteristics of the study (namely, the author(s) name(s), year of
publication, and type of article) and quotes or statements regarding how CBPR is
conceptualized and ethical issues that arise from using this approach to inquiry. To synthesize
the articles, we utilized a qualitative approach (Weeks & Strudsholm, 2008) to theme the data,
372 The Qualitative Report 2018
whereby similar findings were grouped together and then labelled as a category. This process
of analysis also allowed us to see what was missing or not being discussed in the literature
(related to ethical issues when conducting CBPR studies). To ensure reliability of the analysis
and synthesis of the findings, both of us reviewed and approved the findings and
categories/themes. In the next section, we present and discuss the findings of our review.
Discussion
Unique Attributes of CBPR
As a research methodology, CBPR espouses a unique set of values and principles (that
differ from more traditional approaches) that guide the processes of investigation within a study
(Healy, 2001). It is important to note that CBPR shares similar ethical considerations that arise
from more traditional methodologies. For instance, the “overall harms and benefits of research,
the rights of participants to information, privacy and anonymity, and the responsibilities of the
researcher to act with integrity” (Banks et al., 2013, p. 266). However, the focus of this article
is to tease out the ethical considerations that are unique to CBPR. Thus, we discuss five key
attributes of CBPR that are identified within the literature: (i) community as a unit of identity;
(ii) an approach for the vulnerable and marginalized; (iii) collaboration and equal partnership
throughout the entire research process; (iv) an emergent, flexible, and iterative process; and (v)
the research process is geared toward social action. For each attribute, we discuss the various
ethical issues that may arise and the correlate considerations, strategies or actions
recommended by researchers to mitigate such challenges. At the end of the article, we provide
a table that summarizes the discussion.
Attribute I. Community as a Unit of Identity
Eighteen articles included this attribute within their definition of CBPR, but only 10
articles discussed the ethical implications that may arise from this attribute. Within CBPR
studies the primary unit(s) are communities of identity, whereby a community can be bound
by geography (e.g., a neighbourhood), by shared identities that are socially constructed (e.g.,
ethnicity, age, gender, ability, or sexual orientation), or by shared values, norms, and interests
(Carter, Banks, Armstrong, Kindon, & Burkett, 2013). CBPR is about knowledge building and
enhancing a sense of collective identity and community throughout a collective engagement.
Further, CBPR is also a political program, whereby one of the end goals is to effect social
change via the collective (Healy, 2001). Working toward this goal entails capturing and
detailing a group's or community's collective identity, problems, issues, strengths, and
opportunities. Fostering collective identity can build social cohesion and community capacity.
No doubt these are important outcomes. However, one must be cautious that in the pursuit of
unity, they do not fall into the perils of essentialism and identity politics.
Ethical issue: Contributing to essentialism and identity politics. Essentialism and
identify politics occurs when a group is ascribed a fixed and myopic identity with presumed
core values shared by all its members (Dick, 2011). Such depictions of a group become
problematic because “they fail to recognize that identities are social constructed and hence
open to challenge and revision [and] they fail to account for the fact that individuals belong to
more than one identity category, making identities complex, multiple, and contradictory, and
ensuring that the experiences of group members are varied rather than uniform” (p. 30). In the
face of essentialism and identity politics, marginalization can occur for those members who
may have life experiences that do not reflect those of the wider group. In this way,
paradoxically, CBPR’s quest toward collective identity and unity can potentially impose on or
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh 373
exclude individual community members – disempowering the individual’s ability to self-
determine and self-identify (Healy, 2001).
To mitigate this ethical risk, Dick (2011) suggests adopting an anti-essentialist
approach to collective identity, such that identities are contingent, contextually situated, and
are always in construction. Further, identities, she noted, “are the product of both assignment
and choice; they are something for which affirmation is sought, yet they are also the subject of
deconstruction, negotiation, challenge, resistance, and revision” (p. 32). CBPR, which is
praised for its democratic process to knowledge building, is often depoliticized and the political
conditions of researchers and participant researchers are seemingly forgotten (Gauchet,
Manent, Finkielkraut, Seaton, & Mahoney, 2004). Gauchet and colleagues (2004) posit that
“every governing of a collectivity by itself implies a certain number of constraints weighing on
individual rights and identity” (p. 153). It is pertinent, then, that efforts to build collective
identity and voice within a CBPR study, do not at the same time silence the individual
differences among community members.
Attribute II. An Approach for the Vulnerable and Marginalized
Thirty articles included this attribute when conceptualizing CBPR, seven of which
integrated a discussion on the ethical risks and implications that may arise due to this attribute.
CBPR is an approach that is often used to give voice to vulnerable and marginalized
communities (Wahab, 2003). Underpinning CBPR methodologies is the “commitment to
accessing voice and to creating spaces for these voices to be heard” (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor,
2015, p. 162). The idea is for those who are directly affected by social inequalities and
injustices to construct their own stories and identities to avoid “a portrayal of the participants
as they are constructed in dominant ideology” (Coy, 2006, p. 428). While CBPR can facilitate
the deconstruction of social stigmas attached to groups and communities, it can paradoxically
reify the same negative perceptions (Joanou, 2009).
Ethical issue: Risk of re-stigmatization, two case examples. Re-stigmatization
occurs when the narrative of negative stereotypes, perceptions, and assumptions about a
particular group or community is being supported and continues to persist within new contexts
(Joanou, 2009). Walsh, Hewson, Shier, and Morales (2008) highlight the risk of re-
stigmatization through their PAR study with youth in a geographic community that was
dominated by negative perceptions and stereotypes. The initial focus of the study was to engage
youth to document through photography and group dialogue a “problem or area for change in
the youth’s community and facilitate a youth engagement project that addressed this concern”
(p. 385). This research agenda was challenged by one of the youth participants, who questioned
the need for their community to be fixed and singled out, noting that other communities
experienced similar problems (e.g., violence and crime). They explained that:
This concern about further stigmatization shifted the focus of the project
resulting in the youth taking pictures of what they considered to be the positive
and negative aspects of their neighborhood and reflecting on both dimensions.
While the project the youth engaged in focused on an area for change, the
images exhibit they presented to the community represented a balanced view of
their neighborhood. (p. 385)
To mitigate the potential harm of re-stigmatization, they recommend that the focus of research
programs should not be determined primarily by the negative perceptions and stereotypes of
the stigmatized community or group. Although they note, labels such as "at-risk" youth or
"disadvantaged" communities do "place emphasis on the need to invest in research funding in
374 The Qualitative Report 2018
this area” (p. 386). In this situation, the research team was faced with an ethical dilemma and
had to consider whether the risks of identifying the community as disadvantaged outweighed
the “possible positive outcomes experienced by the participants and the wider community” (p.
385).
In contrast to Walsh and colleagues’ (2008) experience, Gubrium, Hill, and Flicker’s
(2014) CBPR study highlights the potential of participant researchers, themselves, re-
stigmatizing members of their community. In their study with young mothers as participant
researchers, the researchers were concerned:
. . . with the way, some participants reaffirmed dominant negative narratives
about “teen mothers.” The workshop participants spoke of some as “greedy and
lazy recipients of welfare,” “partiers” who were “bad mothers,” and their own
mothers who “were not in the picture." Although the participants themselves
could be classified as teen mothers, they used derogatory language during the
workshop as a way to contrast themselves with other young women (as well as
their own mothers) who had not risen to the challenge, to position themselves
as good mothers despite the odds. (p. 1611)
This situation raised an ethical dilemma for the researchers. On the other hand, for research
purposes, this was data that could be useful to "illustrate how participants negotiated narratives
on young motherhood and youth sexuality"; however, “for advocacy purposes, the stories
might fail to dislodge conventional conversations” (p. 1611).
What Gubrium and colleagues (2014) did in this situation was incorporate a subsequent
workshop, where “participants were asked to consider dominant representations of young
mothers and youth sexuality in the mass media and then to reflect on their own stories in this
regard” (p. 1611). In this workshop session, the participant researchers were challenged to think
critically about their narrative representations and gently questioned by their “word choices
that have the potential to reinforce negative stereotypes or place blame for systemic health
problems on individuals” (p. 1611). Thus, they suggest that it is important that the narrative
representations by participant researchers are paired with critical discussions to “both
acknowledge external structures and discourses that shape [the participants’] perspectives and
opportunities in the world to put forward a coherent alternative vision” (p. 1611).
Attribute III. Collaboration and Equal Partnership throughout the Entire Research
Process
Thirty-six articles identified this attribute as an important dimension of how CBPR is
conceptualized, and all the articles discussed ethical issues that arise from this attribute.
Collaboration and equal partnership between researchers and participants distinguish CBPR
from other methodologies (Carter et al., 2013). Within CBPR studies, participants share equal
responsibilities, decision-making power, and ownership of the research study. This equalitarian
stance is a laudable aspect of CBPR, yet in practice is challenging and complex (Connolly,
2006; Gilbert, 2004; Maglajlic, 2010; Maiter, Simich, Jacobson, & Wise, 2008; Nygreen, 2009;
Plyes, 2015; Riecken, Strong-Wilson, Conibear, Michel, & Riecken, 2005; Ward & Gahagan,
2010). Without careful considerations of various issues at play (e.g., power dynamics and
relations, resources available, and existing competencies) there is the potential of tokenistic
partnerships and “false equalitarianism” that can emerge, and as such can cause further harm
to participants and the community (Nygreen, 2009, p. 19).
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh 375
Ethical issue: Underestimating the complexity of power dynamics and relations.
Power dynamics and relations, defined as how power works in a specific context such as who
has (and who does not have) the ability (or agency) to influence others, to negotiate, to affect
change, and to make decisions, are intricate before, during, and after a CBPR study (Joanou,
2009). In Franks’ (2011) cross-cultural CBPR with children the issues of power while at the
fore, remain unresolved:
The call for participation can at times ignore the complexity of power relations
not only between the adult researcher and young participant researchers but also
between funding bodies, the researcher(s) and the organizations they work for
and the researched . . . . A methodology that is unequivocally participatory and
non-hierarchical is still to be found. (p. 16)
Nygreen (2009) reminds us, “one cannot simply follow the steps of [CBPR] and expect the
problem of domination to be solved” (p. 19). There is nothing built-in the process of CBPR
that can “transcend the dilemmas of power inherent in the research process” (p. 28). Further,
power dynamics and relations can shift over time (Nugus, Greenfield, Travaglia, &
Braithwaite, 2012).
Ethical issues: Overlooking resources available and existing competencies. CBPR
is an approach that is often used with disadvantaged groups. Thus, a rigid focus on equal
participation fails to acknowledge prior inequalities. Inequities, for example, arise from
different socio-economic status, education levels, gender, sexual orientation, financial
capacity, age, ability, and religion and power dynamics (Green, 2004). Also, often community
members and researchers have different access to resources and skills. These fundamental
inequities can potentially place unfair expectations (and additional burdens) on participant
researchers. Green (2004) insightfully elaborates upon the balance of exploitation and equality
of CBPR, which:
. . . has produced much heartburn for community members and researchers
alike, struggling to rise to the challenge of carrying their side of the bargain as
it might be measured in hours of labor (for which community members often
are unpaid), data collection (for which community members or researchers
might suspect they are being exploited for the data needs of the other party), and
data analysis (much enjoyed by most researchers, but often seen as something
akin to tax filing by community members). To insist too slavishly on “equally”
engaged within each phase can lead to some tedious and potentially exploitive
relationships when the community members and researchers are neither trained
in the same skills nor holding the same resources is to distort the intent of shared
responsibility. (p. 699)
Despite acknowledging the limits to achieving equal participation, this directive of CBPR
remains relatively unchallenged within the literature and stunts necessary conversations as to
how equal partnership, power, and control can be facilitated (Healy, 2001). Researchers should
articulate the power dynamics and inequalities between researchers and participant researchers
at the onset of the research endeavor and what efforts were undertaken to reduce them. In a
fulsome accounting, researchers should acknowledge both effective and ineffective strategies
and for which groups. In response to the question, if it is possible to sustain equal partnership
across all aspects of the research process, Banks and colleagues (2013) conclude that
“community control and equal partnership are much less common in practice than professional
control with elements of community participation” (p. 265).
376 The Qualitative Report 2018
Morgan, Cuskelly, and Moni (2014) caution researchers, to keep in mind “while
participatory research promotes partnerships, it does not necessarily emphasize equal
distribution of power” (p. 1312). Thus, adequate discussions about the challenges towards
achieving equal partnership are necessary to mitigate the potential harm of exploitative
relationships or tokenistic partnerships (Green, 2004). For instance, Minkler (2004) suggests
that the focus should be on equity rather than equality. The shift in terminology, she argues, is
significant in that it implicates an analysis of the prior inequalities and power dynamics at play
– not only between researchers and participant researchers but also among the participant
researchers. The analysis should be ongoing, as partnerships change and evolve overtime and
across different aspects of the research, so will the balance of power (Banks et al., 2013).
Further, a power-neutral approach to partnership may not be ideal (Healy, 2001). For
example, within an evaluation of a PAR study she facilitated, Healy (2001) shared, that
participants
commented on the positive and negative aspects of power that remained in spite
of [her] commitment to reducing power differences. On the one hand,
participants saw some operations of power as useful for maintaining collective
cohesion and direction amongst participants. On the other hand, participants
emphasized the power to which [she] continued to have access, such as that
connected to [her] privileged educational status. (p. 97)
She ascertains that rather than assuming power-neutral positions or averting exertion of power,
that we acknowledge both positive and negative operations of power, to address the negative
effects and to facilitate the positive effects. She warns that a power averse or power-neutral
approach does not make inherent power differences disappear, rather "such recognition is sent
underground" (p. 97). Nugus and colleagues (2012), in a review of their CBPR study within a
bureaucratic organization, affirms Healy’s (2001) re-conceptualization of power through their
statement:
Participatory research needs a concept of politics and power beyond the fixed
oppositional categories of empowerment and disempowerment. Power is
shifting, not fixed, and a source both of opposition and opportunity. So, power
relationships, such as those exposed by research, need constant critical
reflection. (p. 1951)
Wahab (2003) also highlights the need to re-conceptualize power through the commentary of
her PAR study with female sex workers, by sharing her pitfalls of falling into a narrow view
of power:
During my struggles with feeling like I was betraying the participants, I found
myself consumed with the notion of power as “power over,” “power to
dominate,” and “power to coerce and control.” I had significantly overlooked
the authentic power of the study participants . . . . Once, I reconceptualized the
notion of power to include “power within,” “power to create,” and “power as
ability,” I was able to identify the different ways in which we all held and
exercised power in the inquiry process. (p. 637)
If participant researchers are truly to be co-researchers in the CBPR process, then the roles and
tasks assigned to them should be congruent with the resources available to them and their
existing competencies and skills (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Gilbert, 2004). Similar to the
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh 377
discussion on inequities reference above, Bergold and Thomas (2012) note that ensuring such
congruencies are often taken-for-granted and “must be called into question, because co-
researchers frequently belong to lower social class or marginalized groups and have limited
material resources at their disposal” (p. 201). Material resources can include direct
remuneration. Professional researchers are often paid a salary for their work, and as such
participant researchers cannot be expected to provide their time, knowledge and expertise for
free (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015). Albeit, direct remuneration can also be tricky as it can
imply commodification of the participant-researcher(s)’s knowledge (Coy, 2006). Further,
Campbell and Trotter (2007) warn that simply providing a payment “would not solve any
ethical dilemmas” (p. 38). Thus, it is important to consider how the payments are made and not
just what the payments are (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015). Payments should not be
paternalistic, and they should be considered as "ethical fair returns” for the participant
researchers’ contributions to the study (p. 168). Also, context is crucial to consider regarding
remuneration, as what may be considered a small amount for some can be great for others.
Bergold and Thomas (2012) expand on the provision of material resources:
There is no rule about what material resources should be made available to
research partners. It depends on the group in question. Resource provided could
include travel expenses, childcare costs, food for participants with special
dietary needs, compensation for loss of earnings, etc. (p. 201)
In addition to making specific resources available to participant researchers, it is also important
that if there lacks a congruency between methods used in the study and competencies of
participant researchers that comprehensive training and ongoing support is provided (Carter et
al., 2013; Warr, 2011). For instance, participant researchers are often assigned to conduct
interviews within their community and depending on the research topics and questions; such
interviews may sometimes evoke difficult stories and discussions that can also impact the
participant researchers' emotional well-being. A supportive environment is touted as a potential
solution as Carter and colleagues (2013) explain:
The intensity of community-based research often necessitates formalized
reflection processes where researchers cannot just reflect, but also debrief about
their experiences in a supportive environment. This . . . is a critical part of a
community based research project – there needs to be “community” built into
the research process itself so we are not just studying the “community out
there.” (pp. 99-100)
Lastly, Bergold and Thomas (2012) note that it is important to incorporate not only
opportunities to develop specific skills and knowledge to conduct the research, but also “more
general competencies, all of which contribute to personal development” (p. 208).
Competency building is not a one-way pursuit; CBPR studies also need to focus on the
competencies of the professional researcher. For instance, Bruges and Smith (2009), in a
commentary on their CBPR study on sustainable land use with Maori communities and
scientists on the East Cape, New Zealand explained that their “project was also designed to
improve the ability of a scientist to work with rural Maori communities . . . [by providing] both
formal and informal advice and training to [the scientists] regarding Maori protocol and
traditions” (p. 212). As CBPR partnerships often involve cross-cultural research; it is important
that professional researchers can facilitate CBPR through an ecological approach, which
involves adapting the research enterprise to the culture and context of the participant
researchers (Phenice, Griffore, Hakoyama, & Silvey, 2009). While an ecological approach
378 The Qualitative Report 2018
includes understanding certain cultural values, traditions, and protocol, it also includes the
notion of cultural humility (Minkler, 2004; Phenice et al., 2009). Minkler (2004) defines
cultural humility as the idea that:
none of us can truly become “competent” in another’s culture, we can approach
cross-cultural situations with a humble attitude characterized by reflection on
our own biases and sources of invisible privilege, an openness to the culture and
reality of others, and a willingness to listen and continually learn. (p. 691)
Attribute IV. An Emergent, Flexible and Iterative Process
Twenty-six articles included this attribute in their definition of CBPR, all of which
described ethical issues that may arise from this attribute. Hugman, Bartolomei, and Pittaway
(2011a) describe CBPR as an “iterative methodology in which data are generated and analysed,
conclusions drawn and applied in action, the outcomes of which then become the basis for
further consideration as data, . . . [and] this process can have two or more cycles” (p. 662).
Further, it is an emergent and flexible process, whereby research questions, methods,
objectives, and participants may shift based on the context, situations that occur, and constant
negotiations between professional researchers and participant researchers (Phenice et al.,
2009). This principal of CBPR aims to foster accountability mechanisms between professional
researchers and participant researchers (Hugman et al., 2011a). Also, this principal encourages
the voices of participant researchers to be heard and for decision-making to be shared (Ward
& Gahagan, 2010). At the same time, this tenant can cause ethical dilemmas for researchers
(especially university-based researchers) who are also accountable to IRBs that delineate a
more procedural and linear process (Malone, Yerger, McGruder, & Froelicher, 2006; Plyes,
2015). In particular, dilemmas can arise due to divergent expectations and requirements of
obtaining informed consent.
Ethical issue: Tensions with institutional review boards. A common requirement
and expectation of the informed consent process by IRBs is that consent is provided (either
verbally or written) at the beginning of any research activities with participants (Shore, 2006).
Prior to giving consent, participants are to be informed about the details of the study including,
for example: the purpose of the study, what they will be asked to do, what type of personal
information will be collected, risks and benefits if they participate, and what happens after to
the information they provide. If the individuals agree to participate then consent is provided in
a formal manner, which usually involves signing a written consent form or verbally providing
a statement of consent that is audio-recorded (Hugman et al., 2011a). There are advantages to
this formal approach as Hugman and colleagues (2011a) note:
it is explicit, clear, can be tracked and scrutinized and in the event of a complaint
can provide the basis for structured accountability. Thus, it can be said to
achieve the goal of ethical accountability “being seen to be done.” (p. 659)
However, within a CBPR study the proposed research activities, timelines, and expectations of
participant researchers, communities, and professional researchers likely change due to the
emergent and flexible nature of the methodology. Thus, the original information provided to
participants may no longer be relevant, and the ethics application will need to be modified.
While this is not an issue in itself for professional researchers to submit an amendment to the
IRB, it is the length of time it takes for the amendment to be reviewed and approved before any
new research activities can be taken that can be problematic. Further, if the participant
researchers and the community decided such actions, then it seems conflicting to the principals
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh 379
and values of empowerment and shared decision making of CBPR to seek the final approval
from the IRBs.
Hugman and colleagues (2011a) outline another ethical issue that arises from the formal
consent procedures required by IRB:
It relies heavily on a complex approach to legal rights and obligations (and
limits to these) that in turn depends on the capacity of people to exercise their
rights. It assumes knowledge, confidence and other personal and social
resources to understand and to be able to claim redress should the need arise.
(p. 659)
As we indicated previously, CBPR studies are often facilitated with marginalized and
vulnerable populations, and in certain situations, such a formal process can be “alien or
intimidating, or where rights are simply impossible to enforce” (p. 660). For instance, the
authors speak to this issue through their experience conducting a CBPR study with women
living in an isolated refugee camp fraught with security problems. They question how informed
consent can be practiced when individual autonomy, access to exercise rights and agency is
precarious for potential participants. In such a situation, following the typical formal consent
process as required by IRBs may “satisfy only the institutional governance systems without
guaranteeing safeguards for participants” (p. 660).
Hugman and colleagues (2011a) suggest adopting a multi-fold iterative approach to
informed consent, which may assist researchers in mitigating some of the ethical dilemmas
related to the informed consent process. The approach they propose entails, first consent being
sought from the group . . . . [and then] the next step of consent is that after a first
contact the group has an opportunity to continue or to withdraw. Then, third,
informal consent is obtained from individuals initially, on the basis that when
they have seen how the research progresses then they will be asked to give
formal consent for what has taken place to be used as data. Fourth, at a fairly
late stage by comparison with orthodox practice, formal consent is sought and
if given a form is signed. (p. 666)
They propose, “this process . . . constitutes a more realistic way of ensuring that consent is
actually informed” (p. 666). Hwang (2013) also recommends a multi-fold approach to informed
consent when working with children, whereby in her CBPR study she “asked for children’s as
well as the parent’s informed consent to participate . . . at every stage” (p. 453). A multi-fold
approach to consent may conflict with conventional IRB requirements. As a corrective,
Hugman, Pittaway, and Bartolomei (2011b) remind us that there is "often need to negotiate and
even educate those colleagues who constitute such committees about the practical realities of
conducting research well in ethical terms in this type of setting” (p. 1282). Further, for
researchers seeking guidance on completing an ethics application for a CBPR study, Gubrium
and colleagues (2014) suggest accessing examples from The Ethics Application Repository
(TEAR http://tear.otago.ac.nz/), which is “an online archive of IRB applications donated by
international scholars” (p. 1606). Such examples may help in the negotiation process with IRB.
Attribute V. Research Process Is Geared Toward Social Action
Twenty-nine articles integrated this attribute in their conceptualization of CBPR, while
11 discussed the ethical issues that may arise from this attribute. CBPR is an action-oriented
methodology, and as such, research activities include mobilizing research participants and
380 The Qualitative Report 2018
others to take social action based on the knowledge built throughout the research process
(Minkler, 2004). Dawson and Sinwell (2012) explain that those who engage in CBPR “are
social movement researchers who employ research techniques aimed at exposing social
inequalities and who seek to actively promote progressive social change” (p. 178). If not
critically reflected on, this aim towards social action and change can raise various ethical issues
and dilemmas such as culturally inappropriate expressions of social action negative
consequences for the participant researchers and the community, which is elaborated on in the
next section.
Ethical issue: Culturally inappropriate expressions of social action. Social action is
the process of facilitating change at the societal and structural level, and expressions of social
action are the mediums in which the process occurs (e.g., organized protests, policy briefs,
research) (Hick, 2009). CBPR’s historical origins and current renderings have been tied with
social change movements, whereby expressions of social actions are often characterized by
western traditions and values of “conflict, protest, and dissent” (Healy, 2001, p. 102). This
approach to CBPR is based on a conflict theory of society, in which development occurs
through the struggle between groups over limited resources (Stoeker, 2003). Stoeker (2003)
states that through the lens of conflict theory:
Stability in society is only fleeting, and to the extent that it is achieved even
temporarily, it is not because society finds equilibrium but because one group
dominates the other groups. Conflict theory sees society as divided, particularly
between corporations and workers, men and women, and whites and people of
color. The instability inherent in such divided societies prevents elites from
achieving absolute domination and provides opportunities for those on the
bottom to create change through organizing for collective action and conflict.
(p. 40)
CBPR as informed by conflict theory encourages expressions of social action that is more
confrontational (Healy, 2001). Healy (2001) cautions, while these expressions “may be
acceptable to certain population groups, such as some central and southern American culture,
it cannot be assumed that these values are equally applicable to other cultural contexts” (p.
102). The ethical concern, she raises, is that while CBPR is often touted for its cross-cultural
applicability, existing literature fails to acknowledge the reliance of the methodology on
western-based values and traditions, and the implications of culture in shaping the research
process, including the social action strategies made available to participant researchers and the
community.
To mitigate the ethical risks of cultural inappropriate expressions of social action, the
notions of cultural competency and humility, noted earlier in the article, should be considered.
It is important that CBPR practitioners critically reflect on their social location, assumptions,
biases, and values and how these impact their preferences towards different expressions of
social action. What constitutes social actions must be negotiated with the participant
researchers and communities and be appropriate to the cultural context.
Ethical issue: Negative consequences of actions, two case examples. Another ethical
dilemma faced by CBPR researchers, especially relevant to studies initiated by the professional
researcher(s), are the negative consequences that can ensue for participants and the
communities after the action is taken. For instance, Bruges and Smith (2009) highlight this
ethical dilemma well, in their commentary of facilitating sustainable land use in a CBPR study
with Maori communities. The growers of the Maori communities had decided on growing
organic kumara and, the scientist was enlisted to help them achieve this goal. However, after
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh 381
the study was completed it gained some criticism from external actors as the authors (2009)
reported:
A prominent Māori academic invited to a Crop Science for Māori hui criticised
the fact that the project was focused on organic kumara production. He argued
that this focus was unhelpful to Māori as it instilled unrealistic expectations in
terms of the potential for kumara production as a viable land use for Māori
landowners in the 21st century. Similarly, a visiting organic vegetable
wholesaler confirmed that there was little demand for organic kumara, with two
large-scale producers in Northland easily meeting current market requirements.
(p. 216)
The response from the scientist to such criticism was that their role was to support the Maori
growers to define and achieve their own community goals and that it was "not to provide
comment on the economic viability of kumara production in the East Cape, a question outside
their specific expertise" (p. 216). However, Bruges and Smith (2009) raise an important ethical
question in this situation: "can a well-intentioned focus on the goals of the community
unknowingly perpetuate the unrealistic aspirations of the community?" (p. 216).
To address this ethical dilemma, Bruges and Smith (2009) focus on the process of
“informed decision-making, [whereby] scientific research should provide increased choices
and awareness of the implications of these choices” (p. 217). While this process is implicit with
the CBPR approach, it needs to be made explicit as there is “a danger that in trying to correct
for the technocratic ideology inherent in many previous research and extension methodologies,
the participatory approach might see some well-meaning practitioners overcompensate by
unquestionably adhering to the goals of the client group” (p. 216).
Negative consequences of the actions taken in a CBPR study can deeply affect
participant researcher(s) and communities’ lives, such as their livelihoods (as indicated above)
and even their safety can be compromised. Hewitt, Draper, and Ismail (2013) remind those
embarking on a CBPR study that “despite its potential benefits . . . it is critical to note, however,
that [such] approaches always [italics in original] carry risk and have the potential to be
uncomfortable, even dangerous for participants as they challenge the status quo” (p. 17). For
example, Dawson and Sinwell (2012) outline the ethical dilemmas they faced in a CBPR study
that was linked to social change movements in South Africa, whereby participants’ safety could
have been compromised if the actions to “organize a united march” was initiated (p. 183).
Before the desire to organize this march, the authors described two events that deterred them
from pressing for the march:
First, in the community of Etwatwa, east of Johannesburg, residents held a mass
meeting demanding that their local government councilor step down. The
councilor called the police who then proceeded to shoot three residents with live
ammunition, injuring two and killing one. This was followed by the arrest of
several residents. Around the same time, another battle over electricity between
middle-class residents and shack dwellers broke out in Protea South (another
LPM affiliate in Soweto) and two people were shot. (p. 183)
The authors noted, “Our ability and desire to coordinate mass action, without necessarily being
directly affected by the consequences of that action, raised important ethical questions . . . .
[and] we must not expect poor people to fight battles for us while we decide when to be the
observer and when we will be the participant observer” (p. 183).
382 The Qualitative Report 2018
Dawson and Sinwell’s (2012) commentary on their study highlight the need for CBPR
researchers to carefully reflect and consider what actions they are encouraging the participant
researchers and communities to take, as in some situations such actions can lead to severe and
dangerous consequences.
Conclusion
CBPR is a “highly promising approach to community-based research and practice” with
praiseworthy goals and objectives, such as social change, empowerment, and capacity building
(Minkler, 2004, p. 695). It is also a difficult terrain to navigate and not immune to ethical
challenges. In this article, we reviewed five key ethical concerns and the correlate suggestions
to mitigate such problems regarding CBPR; the findings of which are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Summary of Community-based Participatory Research Ethical Issues and Recommendations
Unique Attributes of
CBPR
Ethical Issues
I.
Community as a unit of
identity
Essentialism and identity
politics
II.
An approach for the
vulnerable and
marginalized
Risk of re-stigmatization
III.
Collaboration and equal
partnership throughout
the entire research
process
Tokenistic partnerships and
false equalitarianism
Nothing inherent within the
CBPR process that
transcends the influence of
power dynamics and
relations
Methods used are
incongruent with the
resources available and
existing competencies
IV.
An emergent, flexible
and iterative process
Tensions with IRB's
expectations and
requirements for informed
consent
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh 383
V.
Research process is
geared toward social
action
Culturally inappropriate
expressions of social action
Negative consequences for
the participants and
communities
Our goal is not to deter the use of CBPR, but to contend that such ethical concerns need to be
acknowledged, discussed, debated, and addressed within the literature. In failing to reflect upon
these issues, they can be silenced while the positives and strengths of the CBPR methodology
are hegemonic (Healy, 2001). Through a frank, reflective, and critical discussion on ethical
issues unique to CBPR, researchers may be more prepared to navigate such challenges and
realize the praiseworthy goals and potentials of CBPR.
When interpreting the findings of this review, there are a couple of limitations that
should be considered. First, since we utilized a narrative literature review methodology, which
is relatively less methodical compared to a meta-analysis or systematic literature review, we
were able to include review and commentary articles. These types of articles can provide
unique insights, and provoke controversy and thought regarding a discussion topic. Albeit,
there are higher levels of subjectivity and biases in reviews and commentaries compared to
articles based on original research, for example. Second, we only included articles written in
English, and thus potentially excluding articles that may highlight additional ethical issues of
conducting CBPR in different cultural contexts.
References
Note: References with an asterisk (*) are the articles included in the narrative review.
*Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., . . . & Strachan,
A. (2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary
Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 8(3), 263-277.
*Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological
approach in motion. Historical Social Research, 37(4), 191-222.
*Bradbury-Jones, C., & Taylor, J. (2015). Engaging with children as co-researchers:
Challenges, counter-challenges, and solutions. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 18(2), 161-173.
Branom, C. (2012). Community-based participatory research as a social work research and
intervention approach. Community Practice, 20(3), 260-273.
*Bruges, M., & Smith, W. (2009). Improving utilization of Maori land: Challenges and
successes in the application of a participatory approach. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal
of Social Sciences Online, 4(3), 205-220.
*Campbell, C., & Trotter, J. (2007). “Invisible” young people: The paradox of participation in
research. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 2(1), 32-39.
*Carter, K., Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Kindon, S., & Burkett, I. (2013). Issues of disclosure
and intrusion: Ethical challenges for a community researcher. Ethics and Social
Welfare, 7(1), 92-100.
384 The Qualitative Report 2018
*Connolly, A. (2006). Challenges of generating qualitative data with socially excluded young
people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(3), 201-214.
*Coy, M. (2006). This morning I'm a researcher, this afternoon I'm an outreach worker: Ethical
dilemmas in practitioner research. International Journal of Research Methodology,
9(5), 419-431.
Dawson, M. C., & Sinwell, L. (2012). Ethical and political challenges of participatory action
research in the academy: Reflections on social movements and knowledge production
in South Africa. Social Movement Studies, 11(2), 177-191.
*Dick, C. (2011). The perils of identity: Group rights and the politics of intragroup differences.
Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
*Franks, M. (2011). Pockets of participation: Revisiting child-centered participation research.
Children & Society, 25(1), 15-25.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
Gauchet, M., Manent, P., Finkielkraut, A., Seaton, P., & Mahoney, D. J. (2004). The perils of
identity politics. Journal of Democracy, 15(3), 152-165.
*Gilbert, T. (2004). Involving people with learning disabilities in research: Issues and
possibilities. Health and Social Care in the Community, 12(4), 298-308.
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2001). Writing narrative literature reviews for
peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3),
101–117.
*Green, L. W. (2004). Ethics and community-based participatory research: Commentary on
Minkler. Health Education & Behaviour, 31(6), 698-701.
*Gubrium, A. C., Hill, A. L., & Flicker, S. (2014). A situated practice of ethics for participatory
visual and digital methods in public health research and practice: A focus on digital
storytelling. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), 1606-1614.
*Healy, K. (2001). Participatory action research and social work: A critical appraisal.
International Social Work, 44(1), 93-105.
*Hewitt, G., Draper, A. K., & Ismail, S. (2013). Using participatory approaches with older
people in a residential home in Guyana: Challenges and tensions. Journal of Cross
Cultural Gerontology, 28(1), 1-25.
Hick, S. F., Peters, H. I., Corner, T., & London, T. (Eds.). (2009). Structural social work in
action: Examples from practice. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
*Hugman, R., Bartolomei, L., & Pittaway, E. (2011a). Human agency and the meaning of
informed consent: Reflections on research with refugees. Journal of Refugee Studies,
24(4), 655-671.
*Hugman, R., Pittaway, E., & Bartolomei, L. (2011b). When “not harm” is not enough: The
ethics of research with refugees and other vulnerable groups. British Journal of Social
Work, 41(7), 1271-1287.
*Hwang, S. K. (2013). Home movies in participatory research: Children as movie-makers.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(5), 445-456.
*Joanou, J. P. (2009). The bad and ugly: Ethical concerns in participatory photographic
methods with children living and working on the streets of Lima, Peru. Visual Studies,
24(3), 214-223.
Kwan, C., & Walsh, C. (2013). Exploring older people’s perspectives of community
organizing: A Photovoice study in the Philippines. International Journal of Aging and
Society, 3(1), 15-30.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics. New York,
NY: Harper Brothers Publishers.
Crystal Kwan and Christine A. Walsh 385
*Maglajlic, R. A. (2010). "Big organisations" supporting "small involvement": Lessons from
Bosnia and Herzegovina on enabling community-based participation of children
through PAR. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1), 204-214.
*Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N., & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for community-
based participatory action research. Action Research, 63(3), 305-325.
*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.
*Mikesell, L., Bromley, E., & Khodyakov, D. (2013). Ethical community-engaged research: A
literature review. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), e7-e14.
*Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based
participatory research. Health Education & Behavior, 31(6), 684-697.
*Morgan, M. F., Cuskelly, M., & Moni, K. B. (2014). Unanticipated ethical issues in a
participatory research project with individuals with intellectual disability. Disability &
Society, 29(8), 1305-1318.
*Nugus, P., Greenfield, D., Travaglia, J., & Braithwaite, J. (2012). The politics of action
research: “If you don't like the way things are going, get off the bus.” Social Science &
Medicine, 75(11), 1946-1953.
*Nygreen, K. (2009). Critical dilemmas in PAR: Toward a new theory of engaged research for
social change. Social Justice, 36(4), 14-35.
*Phenice, L. A., Griffore, R. J., Hakoyama, M., & Silvey, L. (2009). Ecocultural adaptive
research: A synthesis of ecocultural theory, participatory research, and adaptive
designs. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(3), 289-309.
*Plyes, L. (2015). Participation and other ethical considerations in participatory action research
in post-earthquake rural Haiti. International Social Work, 58(5), 628-645.
*Riecken, T., Strong-Wilson, T., Conibear, F., Michel, C., & Riecken, J. (2005). Connecting,
speaking, listening: Toward an ethics of voice with/in participatory action research.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), 1-16.
*Shore, N. (2006). Re-conceptualizing the Belmont Report: A community-based participatory
research perspective. Journal of Community Practice, 14(4), 5-26.
Stoeker, R. (2003). Community-based research: From practice to theory and back again.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(2), 35-46.
*Walsh, C. A., Hewson, J., Shier, M., & Morales, E. (2008). Unraveling ethics: Reflections
from a community-based participatory research project with youth. The Qualitative
Report, 13(3), 379-393. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss3/4
*Wahab, S. (2003). Creating knowledge collaboratively with female sex workers: Insights
from a qualitative, feminist, and participatory study. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4), 625-642.
*Ward, L., & Gahagan, B. (2010). Crossing the divide between theory and practice: Research
and an ethic of care. Ethics and Social Welfare, 4(2), 210-216.
*Warr, D., Mann, R., & Tacticos, T. (2011). Using peer-interviewing methods to explore place-
based disadvantage: Dissolving the distance between suits and civilians. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(5), 337-352.
Weeks, L. C., & Strudsholm, T. (2008). A scoping review of research on complementary and
alternative medicine (CAM) and the mass media: Looking back, moving forward. BMC
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 8(43).
386 The Qualitative Report 2018
Author Note
Crystal Kwan is a doctoral student at the Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary,
Canada. Her doctoral thesis is focused on exploring seniors’ disaster resilience with a specific
focus on economically marginalized older women living in a disaster-affected community in
the Philippines. Furthermore, her research experiences and interests encompass a variety of
topics within social work: gerontology and social work, community and international
development, social and public policy, and green/environmental social work. Correspondence
regarding this article can be addressed directly to: cry[email protected].
Christine A. Walsh, Professor and Associate Dean (Research and Partnerships), Faculty
of Social Work, University of Calgary conducts community-based, arts-informed and action-
oriented research aimed at improving well-being and enhancing social justice for marginalized
and vulnerable populations. Correspondence regarding this article can also be addressed
directly to: [email protected].
Copyright 2017: Crystal Kwan, Christine A. Walsh, and Nova Southeastern University.
Article Citation
Kwan, C., & Walsh, C. A. (2018). Ethical issues in conducting community-based participatory
research. The Qualitative Report, 23(2), 369-386. Retrieved from
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss2/6