Participatory research operates in a complex, dynamic social milieu and seeks to share the power inherent in knowledge generation with community partners. Institutional review boards (IRBs), however, typically operate from a framework that assumes asymmetrical power relations, hierarchically structured. This article argues that these differing assumptions regarding power contribute to the challenges participatory researchers experience in obtaining IRB approval. Furthermore, the application of the conventional IRB framework in reviewing the ethics of participatory inquiry can itself harm human participants in such projects by limiting the participants' field of choices. This article addresses these challenges, presenting a framework that draws on the literature on power to consider the ethical questions involved in participatory research partnerships. It also describes some ways in which power imbalance might manifest within a participatory research project, and between a project and an IRB, and offers specific strategies for addressing this.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ( 2002, June). Community-based participatory research conference summary. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.ahrq.gov/about/cpcr/cbpr/cbpr1.htm
2.
Attwater, R. (1999). Pragmatist philosophy and soft systems in an upland Thai catchment. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(4), 299-309.
3.
Boser, S. (2006). Ethics and power in community-based participatory research. Action Research, 4(1), 9-21.
4.
Brown, E.R., Holtby, S., Zahnd, E., & Abbott, G.B. (2005). Community-based participatory research in the California Health Interview Survey. Prevention of chronic disease. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2005/
5.
Brydon-Miller, M., & Greenwood, D. (2006). A re-examination of the relationship between action research and human subjects review processes. Action Research , 4(1), 117-128.
6.
Christians, C.G. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 133-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Community Campus Partnerships for Health. ( 2007). Transforming communities and higher education. Retrieved March 19, 2007, fromhttp://www.ccph.info:80/
8.
Denzin, N.K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DePoy, E., & Hartman, A. (1999). Critical action research: A model for social work knowing. Social Work, 44(6), 560-570.
10.
Feroz, B. (2006, May). Reflections on ethical challenges for a doctoral student: A participatory action research dissertation and institutional review board. Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
11.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2001). Power and knowledge. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 70-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (1998). An introduction to action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Guba, I., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Guillemim, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity and “ethically important moments” in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
Karlberg, M. (2004). Beyond the culture of contest. Oxford, UK: GeorgeRonald.
18.
Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas . In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 70-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Krizek, R., & Turner, P. (2006, May). Infiltrating the IRB. Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
20.
Lincoln, Y. (2001). Engaging sympathies: Relationships between action research and social constructivism. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 124-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Hampshire, UK : Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
Morton, A. (1999). Ethics in action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(2), 219-222.
23.
National Institute for Environmental Health. ( 2000, May). Successful models of community-based participatory research: A final report. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/translat/cbr-final.pdf
24.
National Institutes of Health. (2006). Research on ethical issues in human subjects research (R01, PA-06-369). Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-06-369.html
25.
Office for Human Subject Review Protection. (n.d.). IRB guidebook. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm
26.
Punch, M. (1994). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 83-97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Quigley, D. (2003). Conference report: Dialogues for improving research ethics in environmental and public health. Syracuse, NY: Collaborative for Research Ethics in Environmental Health.
28.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Rowan, J. (2000). Research ethics. International Journal of Psychotherapy, 5(2), 103-112.
30.
Schwandt, T. (2006, May). The pressing need for ethical education: A commentary on the growing IRB controversy. Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
31.
Stringer, E. (1999). Action research in action (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
32.
Taylor, P., & Boser, S. (2006). Power and transformation in higher education institutions: Challenges for change. In R. Eyben, C. Harris, & J. Pettit (Eds.), Exploring power for change (IDS Bulletin37(6), pp. 111-121). Brighton, UK: IDS.
33.
Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Gartlehner, G., Lohr, K.N., Griffith, D., et al. (August, 2004). Community-based participatory research: Assessing the evidence (Summary, Evidence Report, Technology Assessment No. 99; AHRQ Publication 04-E022-1). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
34.
Williamson, G.R. (2002). Illustrating the ethical dimensions of action research. Nurse Researcher, 10(2), 38-50.
35.
Williamson, G.R., & Prossner, S. (2002). Action research, ethics and participation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(5), 587-594.
