“Walking along beside the Researcher”: How Canadian REBs/IRBs are Responding to the Needs of Community-Based Participatory Research
“Walking along beside the Researcher”: How Canadian REBs/IRBs are Responding to the Needs of Community-Based Participatory Research
复制标题
“与研究人员同行”：加拿大 REB/IRB 如何响应基于社区的参与性研究的需求
DOI：
10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.17
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
S. Fielden
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Guta;S. Nixon;Jacquie Gahagan;S. Fielden
研究伦理委员会和机构审查委员会(REBS/IRBs)一直受到批评，因为它们依赖于优先考虑生物医学、临床和实验设计的研究概念，并惩罚偏离这一模式的研究。使用基于社区的参与性研究(CBPR)设计的研究被认为特别具有挑战性，难以通过现有的道德审查框架进行导航。然而，在这场辩论中，REB/IRB成员和工作人员的声音基本缺席。本文的目的是探讨设在加拿大大学的REBS/IRBs成员对其审查CBPR议定书的能力的看法。我们介绍了对24名加拿大REB/IRB成员、工作人员和其他关键线人的采访结果。参与者被要求描述和对比他们使用CBPR和主流方法回顾研究的经历。与认为REBS/IRBs缺乏灵活性和反应迟钝的看法相反，与会者描述了他们试图与研究人员对话和谈判并提供指导。总体而言，这些加拿大REBS/IRBs对CBPR的理解比文献中通常描述的要复杂得多。最后，我们将我们的发现放在关于关系伦理的文献中，并探索研究人员和REBS/IRBs合作的可能性，以找到解决CBPR中独特的伦理紧张的解决方案。
Research ethics boards and institutional review boards (REBs/IRBs) have been criticized for relying on conceptions of research that privilege biomedical, clinical, and experimental designs, and for penalizing research that deviates from this model. Studies that use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) design have been identified as particularly challenging to navigate through existing ethics review frameworks. However, the voices of REB/IRB members and staff have been largely absent in this debate. The objective of this article is to explore the perspectives of members of Canadian university-based REBs/IRBs regarding their capacity to review CBPR protocols. We present findings from interviews with 24 Canadian REB/IRB members, staff, and other key informants. Participants were asked to describe and contrast their experiences reviewing studies using CBPR and mainstream approaches. Contrary to the perception that REBs/IRBs are inflexible and unresponsive, participants described their attempts to dialogue and negotiate with researchers and to provide guidance. Overall, these Canadian REBs/IRBs demonstrated a more complex understanding of CBPR than is typically characterized in the literature. Finally, we situate our findings within literature on relational ethics and explore the possibility of researchers and REBs/IRBs working collaboratively to find solutions to unique ethical tensions in CBPR.