The power of community-based participatory research: Ethical and effective ways of researching

ABSTRACT

In this article we explore ethical and effective standards of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) as a practice that differentiates itself from conventional research. We emphasize the fundamental and active role of community in participatory processes by legitimizing multiple forms of knowledge through a variety of methods that together provide discovery and dissemination of the findings. The goal of CBPR is to directly or indirectly achieve social transformation and social/ environmental justice. Researchers and community participants equally share control over the research, results and outputs. We present three case studies, highlighting some of the ethical concerns and difficulties encountered in the research process and speak to the implementation of key principles that sustain CBPR. The research follows a “slow” praxis, with relationship building and learning about local contexts, offering diverse ways of involving community, using innovative tools and approaches. Finally, we present considerations on how CBPR research can be done effectively and ethically, drawing attention to some research gaps.

KEYWORDS:

• Community-based participatory research
• participatory action research
• research ethics
• epistemology
• community development

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the reviewers and the editor of the Journal Community Development for the constructive and insightful comments and suggestions that have benefitted the manuscript. We acknowledge the input from the many participants in our conversations during the regular Community-based research meetings as well as during the Idea-Fest event in 2018. This article is the result of an ongoing process of knowledge co-creation between scholars, students and practitioners.

Disclosure of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) under Grant Number 890-2016-0098. LLG received support from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, proc. n. 2019/12804-3).