In February 2019, OUTSaskatoon, a 2SLGBTQ+ resource centre in Saskatoon, SK, received 1.1 M in federal funds to support a five-year project set to intervene in the instances and societal perpetuation of gender-based violence toward the 2SLGBTQ+ community. The project involved partnerships between OUTSaskatoon and the University of Saskatchewan, including a comprehensive research and evaluation stream to accompany the delivery of front-line services and educational activities. During the project’s application to the University’s Research Ethics Board (REB), members of the ethics review committee expressed heightened levels of fear and discomfort not only with the subject-matter, but with the role (and centrality) of the community organization within the research process. The documented experience explores pressing barriers to effective and ethical community-university research partnerships. To this end, the authors explore their communications with the REB alongside the themes of “vulnerability,” “risk-aversion,” and more broadly regarding the timelines of community work versus university processes. Together these themes maintain a culture of academic exceptionalism that causes significant barriers to the development of reciprocal partnerships between community partners and universities. In this case, the outcome was hopeful, as a formal complaint to the REB received a documented apology. In documenting this specific, though not unique, experience, we aim to highlight the possibilities for leaning in and building ethical space between and through community and academic environments to foreground both needed critique and collaborative pathways forward.
- Research Ethics Board,
- community-based research,
- non-profit organizations,
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
- Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., Holland, T., Holmes, C., Lee, A., McNulty, A., Moore, N., Nayling, N., Stokoe, A., & Strachan, A. (2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263–277.
- Blackburn, S. (1999). Think: A compelling introduction to philosophy. Oxford University Press.
- Burris, S., & Davis, C. (2009). Assessing social risks prior to commencement of a clinical trial: Due diligence or ethical inflation? The American Journal of Bioethics, 9(11), 48–54.
- Butler, J. (2020). The force of nonviolence: An ethico-political bind. Verso Books.
- CIHR, NSERC, & SSHRC. (2019). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans – TCPS 2 2018. Government of Canada, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research.
- Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., The Leap Advisory Board, Straits, K., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Rodriguez Espinosa, P., Nicasio, A. V., Andrasik, M. P., Hawes, S. M., Miller, K. A., Nelson, L. A., Orfaly, V. E., Duran, B. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. The American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167
- Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 193–203.
- Fiske, S. T. (2009). Institutional review boards: From bane to benefit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 30–31.
- Flicker, S., Savan, B., McGrath, M., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2007). “If you could change one thing...” What community-based researchers wish they could have done differently. Community Development Journal, 43(2), 239–253.
- Griffith, D. M., Citrin, T., Jerome, N. W., Bayer, I., & Mebane, E. (2009). The origins and overview of the W. K. Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 3(4), 335-348.
- Gustafson, D. L., & Brunger, F. (2014). Ethics, “vulnerability,” and feminist participatory action research with a disability community. Qualitative Health Research, 24(7), 997–1005.
- Kwan, C., & Walsh, C. (2018). Ethical issues in conducting community-based participatory research: A narrative review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 23(2), 369-386.
- Loewen Walker, R. (2022). Queer and deleuzian temporalities: Toward a living present. Bloomsbury.
- Miller, F. G., & Wertheimer, A. (2007). Facing up to paternalism in research ethics. Hastings Center Report. 37(3), 24–34.
- Morse, J. M. (2007). Ethics in action: Ethical principles for doing qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1003–1005.
- Moyle, W. (2002). Unstructured interviews: Challenges when participants have a major depressive illness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 39(3), 266–273.
- Nadin, S., Katt, M., Dewa, C., & Cheng, C. (2018). NorthBEAT’s capacity-to-consent protocol for obtaining informed consent from youth evaluation participants: An alternative to parental consent. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 33(1), 135-153.
- Olsen, M. (2019, April 12). OUTSaskatoon receives $1.1 million for programs addressing genderbased violence. The Star Phoenix. https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/outsaskatoonreceives-1-1-million-for-programs-addressing-gender-based-violence
- OUTSaskatoon. (2019). Recommendations to the Standing Committee on Health: LGBTQ2 Health in Canada. Presented to the Standing Committee on Health. OUTSaskatoon: Saskatoon, SK. https://www.outsaskatoon.ca/research
- Rossetto, K. R. (2014). Qualitative research interviews: Assessing the therapeutic value and challenges. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4), 482–489.
- Shaw, R. M. (2015). Ethics, moral life and the body: Sociological perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
- Small, W., Maher, L., & Kerr, T. (2014). Institutional ethical review and ethnographic research involving injection drug users: A case study. Social Science & Medicine, 104, 157–162.
- Snyder, J. E. (2011). Trend analysis of medical publications about LGBT persons: 1950–2007. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(2), 164–188.
- Piller, T. (2019, April 12th). OUTSaskatoon getting over $1.1M to support survivors of gender-based violence. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/5162767/outsaskatoon-lgbtq2-survivorsgender-based-violence/
- Short, A. (2020, Mar 3rd). First-of-its-kind LGBTQ2+ youth home continues to have impact. Star Phoenix. https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/first-of-its-kind-lgbtq2-youth-homecontinues-to-have-impact
- The First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2014). Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP): The Path to First Nations Information Governance (Paper). The First Nations Information Governance Centre.
- Travers, R., Pyne, J., Bauer, G., Munro, L., Giambrone, B., Hammond, R., & Scanlon, K. (2013). “Community control” in CBPR: Challenges experienced and questions raised from the transPULSE project. Action Research, 11(4), 403–422.
- University of Saskatchewan. (2013). Human Research Ethics Policy University of Saskatchewan. https://policies.usask.ca/policies/research-and-scholarly-activities/human-research-ethics-policy.php#Principles
- University of Saskatchewan. (2018). Discovery the world needs: University of Saskatchewan’s strategic research plan 2018-2025. University of Saskatchewan.
- Van den Hoonaard, W. C. (Ed.) (2002). Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers. University of Toronto Press.
- Wallerstein, N., Muhammad, M., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Rodriguez Espinosa, P., Avila, M., Baker, E. A., Barnett, S., Belone, L., Golub, M., Lucero, J., Mahdi, I., Noyes, E., Nguyen, T., Roubideaux, Y., Sigo, R., & Duran, B. (2019). Power dynamics in community-based participatory research: A multiple–case study analysis of partnering contexts, histories, and practices. Health Education & Behavior, 46(1_suppl), 19S-32S.
- Wilson, J. (2011). Why it’s time to stop worrying about paternalism in health policy. Public Health Ethics, 4(3), 269–279.
- Wittgenstein, L. (1965). I: A lecture on ethics. The Philosophical Review, 3–12.
- Wiwchar, D. (2004). Nuu-chah-nulth blood returns to west coast. Ha-Shilth-Sa, 31(25), 1–4.
- Wood, L. (2017). The ethical implications of community-based research: A call to rethink current review board requirements. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-7.