OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness of various systems of community participation in ethical review of environmental health research. METHODS: We used situation analysis methods and a global workspace theoretical framework to conduct comparative case studies of 3 research organizations at 1 medical center. RESULTS: We found a general institutional commitment to community review as well as personal commitment from some participants in the process. However, difficulty in communicating across divides of knowledge and privilege created serious gaps in implementation, leaving research vulnerable to validity threats (such as misinterpretation of findings) and communities vulnerable to harm. The methods used in each collaboration solved some, but not all, of the problems that hindered communication. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers, community spokespersons, and institutional review boards constitute organizational groups with strong internal ties and highly developed cultures. Few cross-linkages and little knowledge of each other cause significant distortion of information and other forms of miscommunication between groups. Our data suggest that organizations designed to protect human volunteers are in the best position to take the lead in implementing community review.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness of various systems of community participation in ethical review of environmental health research. METHODS: We used situation analysis methods and a global workspace theoretical framework to conduct comparative case studies of 3 research organizations at 1 medical center. RESULTS: We found a general institutional commitment to community review as well as personal commitment from some participants in the process. However, difficulty in communicating across divides of knowledge and privilege created serious gaps in implementation, leaving research vulnerable to validity threats (such as misinterpretation of findings) and communities vulnerable to harm. The methods used in each collaboration solved some, but not all, of the problems that hindered communication. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers, community spokespersons, and institutional review boards constitute organizational groups with strong internal ties and highly developed cultures. Few cross-linkages and little knowledge of each other cause significant distortion of information and other forms of miscommunication between groups. Our data suggest that organizations designed to protect human volunteers are in the best position to take the lead in implementing community review.
Authors: Z M Chirenje; S Rusakaniko; L Kirumbi; E W Ngwalle; P Makuta-Tlebere; S Kaggwa; W Mpanju-Shumbusho; L Makoae Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2003-09-18 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: R P Strauss; S Sengupta; S C Quinn; J Goeppinger; C Spaulding; S M Kegeles; G Millett Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rodrick M Wallace; Mindy T Fullilove; Robert E Fullilove; Deborah N Wallace Journal: Theor Biol Med Model Date: 2007-02-26 Impact factor: 2.432
Authors: Robert L Williams; Cathleen E Willging; Gilbert Quintero; Summers Kalishman; Andrew L Sussman; William L Freeman Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Melissa Gonzales; Elanda King; Jeanette Bobelu; Donica M Ghahate; Teresa Madrid; Sheri Lesansee; Vallabh Shah Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stuart G Nicholls; Tavis P Hayes; Jamie C Brehaut; Michael McDonald; Charles Weijer; Raphael Saginur; Dean Fergusson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 3.240