4.3 Article

Balancing Scientific and Community Interests in Community-Based Participatory Research

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2010.493095

Keywords

community based participatory research; data interpretation; data sharing; ethics; objectivity; openness; publication

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [ZIAES102646] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Community-based participatory research is an approach to studying human populations that emphasizes extensive partnerships between researchers and community members. While there are many advantages of this approach, it also faces a number of conceptual and practical challenges, one of which is managing the conflict that sometimes arises between promoting scientific and community interests. This essay explores the potential conflict between scientific and community interests in several different stages of community-based participatory research, including research design, data interpretation, and publication, and makes some suggestions for practice and policy. To manage potential conflicts between scientific and community interests, investigators and community partners should enter into written agreements at the beginning of the study. In some cases, it may be necessary for a third party, such as a review committee from a supporting institution, the community, or a funding agency, to help investigators and community partners resolve disagreements. It may also be useful, in some situations, to publish a dissenting opinion when investigators and community partners cannot agree on how to interpret findings resulting from a study. These strategies may help address some of the challenges of implementing community-based participatory research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available