As an approach to research, community‑engaged research (CEnR) emerged in part in response to ethical failures of traditional research approaches that too often harmed marginalized communities. While CEnR offers a more just and inclusive framework for research, it also presents unique ethical and procedural challenges that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are not always well‑positioned to address using conventional review models.
A Michigan State University (MSU) study reviewed the relevant literature and examined faculty experiences with the IRB process for CEnR projects. Drawing on both the literature and a survey of MSU researchers, the study identified common obstacles researchers encounter, strategies they use to navigate the review process, and recommendations for improving IRB review of CEnR protocols.
Findings indicate that community‑engaged researchers often face significant challenges during IRB application and review. These challenges stem from differing understandings of CEnR among stakeholders, relationships between researchers and IRBs, and structural features of IRB processes (Table 1).
|
|
Challenge |
Definition |
|---|---|---|
|
Understanding |
The understandings and assumptions different parties to the IRB process (IRB staff and board members, researchers, community partners) hold regarding CEnR, research, research ethics, and communities |
|
|
Relationships |
How effectively and efficiently the different parties involved in the IRB process interact to ensure that community-engaged research is conducted in an ethical manner |
|
|
Processes |
The extent to which IRB processes and procedures support or hinder the application, review, and amendment process for CEnR projects |
Our study points to several promising strategies for addressing these barriers. Although many recommendations for improving the IRB process for CEnR projects involve changes to how IRBs operate, community‑engaged researchers can use several strategies to work more effectively with their IRBs. Below are tips to help ensure an efficient and timely review of CEnR protocols.
Tips for Researchers
- Approach the IRB as a collaborator, not an adversary. IRBs share your goal of ensuring that research is conducted ethically and responsibly. Framing the relationship as a partnership can foster more constructive dialogue and problem‑solving.
- Communicate early and often. Reach out to the IRB during the planning stages of your project, especially to discuss ethical complexities or non-traditional procedures. Early communication can prevent delays later in the review process.
- Clearly explain the emergent nature of your project. CEnR projects often evolve in response to community needs and contexts. Be explicit about which elements are fixed, which are flexible, and how you will manage changes ethically and notify the IRB of those changes as the project develops.
- Provide as much specificity as possible. IRBs cannot assess or approve procedures that are not clearly defined. Even in iterative projects, clearly outlining anticipated activities, decision‑making processes, and safeguards is essential for review.
- Leverage IRB expertise in CEnR. Contrary to common assumptions, MSU’s IRB has substantial experience reviewing community‑based and community‑engaged research. Researchers are encouraged to consult the MSU Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) Manual, particularly the section on Community‑Based Research, for guidance.
