This article addresses ethical dilemmas experienced by street-level research and evaluation workers recruiting and gathering data in community-based research projects. The authors focus on a subgroup of street-level research workers, whom they call research extenders (REs), employed because they share important characteristics with the target population. Like other street-level research workers, some REs are single role (only do research work) and others are dual role (do research work and provide services). They discuss relevant literature and findings from pilot focus groups exploring how REs understand responsible ethical conduct in their research work in the community. REs face ethical issues somewhat different from those of more traditional, non-indigenous street-level research workers. These issues increase social risk for study participants and could compromise the validity of data. Researchers need to be aware of and address the distinctive set of ethical issues raised by research and evaluation projects employing indigenous, street-level research workers.
American Association of Public Opinion Research. (2003). Interviewer falsification in survey research: Current best methods for prevention, detection, and repair of its effects Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/falsification.pdf
2.
Andrews, J.O., Felton, G., Wewers, M.E., & Heath, J. (2004). Use of community health workers in research with ethnic minority women. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36, 358-365.
3.
Berg, B.L., Sanudo, F., Hovell, M., Sipan, C., Kelley, N., & Blumberg, E. (2004). The use of indigenous interviewers in a study of Latino men who have sex with men: A research note. Sexuality & Culture, 8, 87-103.
4.
Clark, C., Scott, E., Boydell, K.M., & Goering, P.N. (1999). Effects of client interviewers on client reported satisfaction with mental health services. Psychiatric Services , 50(7), 961-963.
5.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46.102(d).
6.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46 (45 C.F.R. 46). Subpart A: Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects Retrieved from http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
7.
Cunningham-Williams, R.M., Cottler, L.B., Compton, W.M., Desmond, D.P., Wechsberg, W., Zule, W.A., et al. (1999). Reaching and enrolling drug users for HIV prevention: A multi-site analysisDrug and Alcohol Dependence , 54, 1-10.
8.
Fadem, P., Minkler, M., Perry, M., Blum, K., Moore, L., & Rogers, J. (2003). Ethical challenges in community-based participatory research. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 242-262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Fox, K.J. (1991). The politics of prevention: Ethnographers combat AIDS among drug users. In M. Burawoy, A. Burton, A. A. Ferguson , K. J. Fox, J. Gamson, N. Gartrell, et al. (Eds.), Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis (pp. 227-249). Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
Geter, R.S. (1995). Drug research: An institutional methodology. International Journal of the Addictions, 30, 617-627.
11.
Green, L.W., & Glasgow, R.E. (2006). Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: Issues in translation methodology and external validity. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 29, 126-153.
12.
Harper, G.W., Bangi, A.K., Contreras, R., Pedraza, A., Tolliver, M., & Vess, L. (2004). Diverse phases of collaboration: Working together to improve community-based HIV interventions for adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 193-204.
13.
Hildebrandt, E. (1996). Survey data collection: Operationalizing the research design. Public Health Nursing, 13(2), 135-140.
14.
Hill, M.N., Bone, L.R., & Butz, A.M. (1996). Enhancing the role of community health workers in research. Image—The Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 28, 221-227.
15.
Holbrook, A.L., Farrar, I.C., & Popkin, S.J. (2006). Surveying a Chicago public housing development: Methodological challenges and lessons learned. Evaluation Review, 30, 779-802.
16.
Israel, B.A., Lichtenstein, R., Lantz, P., McGranaghan, R., Allen, A., Guzman, J.R. et. al. (2001). The Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center: Development, implementation & evaluation. Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 7, 1-19.
17.
Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 82, 3-12.
18.
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). (2003). Community based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Morgan, D.L., & Krueger, R.A. (1998). The focus group kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Office of Research Integrity. (2004a). Case summariesOffice of Research Integrity Newsletter, 12(2). Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
21.
Office of Research Integrity. (2004b). Misconduct findings made against curbstonersOffice of Research Integrity Newsletter, 12(2). Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
22.
Office of Research Integrity. (2004c). Survey researchers address curbstoningOffice of Research Integrity Newsletter, 12(4). Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
23.
Office of Research Integrity. (2006a). Case summariesOffice of Research Integrity Newsletter, 14(2). Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
24.
Office of Research Integrity. (2006b). Case summariesOffice of Research Integrity Newsletter, 14(3). Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
25.
Office of Research Integrity. (2006c). Case summariesOffice of Research Integrity Newsletter, 14(4). Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
26.
Office of Research Integrity. (2006d). Case summariesOffice of Research Integrity Newsletter, 15(1). Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
27.
Office of Research Integrity. (2006e). Handling misconduct—preliminary assessment: Can survey research staff commit research misconduct? Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/survey_research.shtml
28.
Perry, J., & Felce, D. (2004). Initial findings on the involvement of people with an intellectual disability in interviewing their peers about quality of life. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability , 29, 164-171.
29.
Richman, K.A. (2002, Fall). Responsible conduct of research is all well and good. American Journal of Bioethics, 2, 62-63.
30.
Roth, J.A. (1966). Hired hand research. The American Sociologist, 1, 190-196.
31.
Silka, L. (2003). Community repositories of knowledge: A tool to make sure research pays for university partners. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, 71, 61-64. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.nebhe.org/info/pdf/nejhe/Connection_Spring03.pdf
32.
Simoni, J.M., Weinberg, B.A., & Nero, D.K. (1999). Notes from the field: Training community members to conduct survey interviews: Notes from a study of seropositive women. AIDS Education and Prevention, 11, 87-88.
33.
Staggenborg, S. (1988). “Hired hand” research revisited. The American Sociologist, 19(3), 260-269.
34.
Survey Research Laboratory, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, University of Illinois. (2004). Publications . Survey Research, 35, 15-16. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://www.srl.uic.edu/Publist/Newsletter/2004/04v35n1.pdf
35.
Sussman, S., Valente, T.W., Rohrbach, L.A., Skara, S., & Pentz, M.A. (2006). Translation in the health professions: Converting science into action. Evaluation & the Health Professions , 29, 7-32.
