The Limits of Collaboration

A Qualitative Study of Community Ethical Review of Environmental Health Research

Bibliographic Data

ID14599765
AuthorsMoriah McSharry McGrath (0000-0002-3911-2988, At the time of study, the authors were with the Community Research Group of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York.), Stefan Nitschke (corresponding author), Robert E Fullilove (At the time of study, the authors were with the Community Research Group of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York.), Molly Rose Kaufman (At the time of study, the authors were with the Community Research Group of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York.), Rodrick Wallace (At the time of study, the authors were with the Community Research Group of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York.), Mindy Thompson Fullilove (At the time of study, the authors were with the Community Research Group of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York.)
Year2009
Volume99
Issue8
Pages1510-1514
Publication date2009-08-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0090-0036 • E-ISSN: 1541-0048
PublisherAmerican Public Health Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2105/ajph.2008.149310
PMID19542033
PMCIDPMC2707487
OpenAlexW19542033
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited14

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

Cultural and Mythological Studies · Historical Art and Architecture Studies · Spanish Literature and Culture Studies · Geology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub