Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Controversies in Engaged Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook on Crime and Deviance

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

  • 10k Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the main characteristics of engaged research (ER) that can make such research ethically problematic. Engaged research is that form of research in which the persons or groups being studied are also participants in the research. The problematic characteristics are the participation continuum or degree of engagement, complexity of relationships in ER projects, and the developmental nature of ER. These characteristics have generated several ethical controversies: (1) ethics of process or of outcomes, (2) ambiguity of “community,” (3) capacity of participants, (4) variety and unpredictability of risk, and (5) ethical review and regulation. We use examples from two ER projects, one in probation and one in a residential program for youth, to highlight the problems. We conclude with some steps that might help resolve the ethical disagreements among ER researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Argyris, C. (1970). Unintended consequences of rigorous research. In Intervention theory and method. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A. … Moore, N. (2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2007). The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00487.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, W. (1966). Changing organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2(3), 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boser, S. (2006). Ethics and power in community-campus partnerships for research. Action Research, 4(9), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boser, S. (2007). Power, ethics, and the IRB: Dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1060–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, E., Jones, L., Rosenthal, M., Helsler, M., Sochalski, J., Koniak-Griffith, D. … Kenneth, B. (2015a). The national clinician scholars program: Teaching transformational leadership and promoting health justice through community-engaged research ethics. AMA Journal of Ethics, 17(12), 1127–1135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, E., Mikesell, L., Jones, F., & Khodyakov, D. (2015b). From subject to participant: Ethics and the evolving role of community in health research. American Journal of Public Health, 105(5), 900–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugge, D., & Kole, A. (2003). A case study of community-based participatory ethics: The Healthy Public Housing Initiative. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, R. J., & Svyantek, D. J. (1987). The impossibility of using random strategies to study the organization development process. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(2), 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cargill, S. S., DeBrun, D., Eder, M., Heitman, E., Kaberry, J. M., McCormick, J. B. … Anderson, E. E. (2016). Community-engaged research ethics review: Exploring flexibility in federal regulations. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 38(3), 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Foundation. (2015). Carnegie community engagement classification, from New England Resource Center for Higher Education, University of Massachusetts-Boston, downloaded October 15, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashman, S., Adeky, S., Allen, A. J., Corburn, J., Israel, B. A., Montano, J. … Wallerstein, N. (2008). The power and the promise: Working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1407–1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, J. (1945). United States Indian Administration as a laboratory of ethnic relations. Social Research, 12(3), 265–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, C. T., & Daoust, T. (2008). Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environmental Management, 41, 358–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 41(12), 1667–1676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, J. E., Pickering, K., & Hickey, M. (2015). Community-based participatory research, ethics, and institutional review boards: Untying a Gordian knot. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1007–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie, J., & Cottrell, B. (2001). Community based research ethics review: Reflections on experience and recommendations for action. Health Law Review, 10, 8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. (2015). Editorial: Research subjects’ voices: The missing element in research ethics. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 43, 297–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffee, D. E. (2009). Knowledge to practice or knowledge of practice? A comparison of two approaches to bringing science to service. In Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 349–379). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetterman, D. M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: An introduction to theory and practice. In D. M. Fetterman, S. J. Kaftarian, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flicker, S., Travers, R., Guta, A., McDonald, S., & Meagher, A. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional Review Boards. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 84(4), 478–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, N. J. (2003). Practice-based evidence: Towards collaborative and transgressive research. Sociology, 37(1), 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1995). Organization development (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NY: Seabury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, S. M., Anderson, E. E., Cowan, K., Malen, R. C., & Brugge, D. (2015). Awareness of federal regulatory mechanisms relevant to community-engaged research: Survey of health disparities-oriented NIH-funded investigators. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(1), 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopichandran, V., Luyckx, V. A., Biller-Andomo, N., Fairchild, A., Singh, J., Tran, N. … Vahedi, M. (2016). Developing the ethics of implementation research in health. Implementation Science, 11, 161–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guta, A., Nixon, S., Gahagan, J., & Fielden, S. (2012). “Walking along beside the researcher”: How Canadian REBs/IRBs are responding to the needs of community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isler, M. R., & Corbie-Smith, G. (2012). Practical steps to community engaged research: From inputs to outcomes. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 40(4), 904–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E., & Becker, A. (1998). Review of community based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, G. (2010). Conflicting demands and the power of defensive routines in participatory action research. Action Research, 8(4), 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanlou, N., & Peter, E. (2005). Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science of Medicine, 60(10), 2333–2340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology, 3, 197–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D. J., McDonald, M. A., Heurtin-Roberts, S., Updegrove, S., Simpson, D., Gutter, S., & Eder, M. (2011). Community engagement: Definitions and organizing concepts from the literature. In D. J. McCloskey, et al. (Eds.), Principles of community engagement (2nd Ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health publication #117782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikesell, L., Bromley, E., & Khodyakov, D. (2013). Ethical community-engaged research: A literature review. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), e7–e14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirvis, P. H., & Seashore, S. E. (1979). Being ethical in organizational research. American Psychologist, 34(9), 766–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nebeker, C., Kalichman, M., Talavera, A., & Elder, J. (2015). Training in research ethics and standards for community health workers and Promotores engaged in Latino heath research. Hastings Center Report, 45(4), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. J. (1993). The American Bar Foundation survey and the development of criminal justice higher education (pp. 279–349). In L. E. Ohlin & F. J. Remington (Eds.), Discretion in criminal justice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyden, P., Figert, A., Shibley, M., & Burrows, D. (1997). Building community: Social science in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, K. A., Sandmann, L. R., Saltmarsh, J., & Giles, D. E. (2011). Studying the professional lives and work of faculty involved in community engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oetzel, J. G., Villega, M., Zenone, H., White Hat, E. R., Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2015). Enhancing stewardship of community engaged research through governance. American Journal of Public Health, 105(6), 1161–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penslar, R. L., & Porter, J. P. (1993). IRB guidebook. US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: http://wayback.archive-it.org/org-745/20150930181805/, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_guidebook.htm.

  • Rolnick, J. N., Downing, N. L., Shieh, L., Heidenrich, P., & Cho, M. K. (2017). Ethical oversight of quality improvement and the research-QI boundary: A new common rule changes little. IRB Ethics and Human Research, 39(3), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. F., Loup, A., Nelson, R. M., Botkin, J. R., Kost, R., Smith, G. R., & Gehlert, S. (2010). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: A research ethics framework. Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sense, A. J. (2006). Driving the bus from the rear passenger seat: Control dilemmas of participative action research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, N. (2006). Re-conceptualizing the Belmont report: A community-based participatory research perspective. Journal of Community Practice, 14(4), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, N., Drew, E., Brazauskas, R., & Seifer, S. D. (2011). Relationships between community-based processes for research ethics review and institution-based IRBs: A national study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(2), 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, N., Ford, A., Wat, E. Brayboy, M., Isaacs, M., Park, A. … Seifer, S. D. (2015). Community-based review of research across diverse community contexts: Key characteristics, critical issues, and future directions. American Journal of Public Health, 105(7), 1294–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, S., & Piechowski, P. J. (2011). Developing community partner training: Regulations and relationships. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(2), 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinert, R. M. (1975). Postscript. In D. E. Duffee (Ed.), Correctional policy and prison organization. New York: Sage and John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2010). Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 100(S1), S40–S46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, G. A. (1984). Organizational development and individual rights. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(4), 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, R. (1972). The community in America (2nd ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. P., & Wooten, K. C. (1983). Ethical dilemmas in various stages of organizational development. Academy of Management Review, 690–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2008). Reforming institutional review board policy: Issues in implementation and field research. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41(3), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096508080864.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Nicole Janich

  2. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA

    David E. Duffee

Authors
  1. Nicole Janich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David E. Duffee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David E. Duffee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Marvin D. Krohn

  2. Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

    Nicole Hendrix

  3. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    Gina Penly Hall

  4. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    Alan J. Lizotte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Janich, N., Duffee, D.E. (2019). Ethical Controversies in Engaged Research. In: Krohn, M., Hendrix, N., Penly Hall, G., Lizotte, A. (eds) Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20778-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20779-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation