Proximity, Ethical Dilemmas, and Community Research Workers

K. Richman, L. Alexander, Gala True
{"title":"Proximity, Ethical Dilemmas, and Community Research Workers","authors":"K. Richman, L. Alexander, Gala True","doi":"10.1080/21507716.2012.714837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In community-engaged research (CEnR), recruitment and data collection are often assigned to community research workers (CRWs). CRWs are hired because of close ties with target communities and presumed greater success recruiting and gathering data from marginalized populations. The value conflicts and personal stress facing CRWs have been described in the international context; however, less attention has been paid to these issues in U.S. settings. Methods: Qualitative interviews were held with CRWs about their experiences with CEnR. Interviews were transcribed and coded using Atlas.ti. Results: The data indicate that CRWs working in settings controlled by the participants, such as neighborhood streets and participant homes, are more likely to face conflicts between following the norms of research and meeting what they perceive to be their everyday obligations to help specific others (duties of relational ethics) and to keep themselves safe. This suggests that “physical proximity” (understood as degree of penetration into the physical domain of the target research community) is an important factor in the ethics of actual practice in CEnR. Conclusions: CRWs often experience ethical complexities that are simply not in the realm of experience of most higher level researchers. How CRWs navigate conflicting ethical obligations can affect the quality and usefulness of the data collected and thereby affect communities by influencing policies informed by these data. Soliciting the perspectives of CRWs early in the process of research design and development is recommended to maximize the benefits achievable through CEnR.","PeriodicalId":89316,"journal":{"name":"AJOB primary research","volume":"49 1","pages":"19 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB primary research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2012.714837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Background: In community-engaged research (CEnR), recruitment and data collection are often assigned to community research workers (CRWs). CRWs are hired because of close ties with target communities and presumed greater success recruiting and gathering data from marginalized populations. The value conflicts and personal stress facing CRWs have been described in the international context; however, less attention has been paid to these issues in U.S. settings. Methods: Qualitative interviews were held with CRWs about their experiences with CEnR. Interviews were transcribed and coded using Atlas.ti. Results: The data indicate that CRWs working in settings controlled by the participants, such as neighborhood streets and participant homes, are more likely to face conflicts between following the norms of research and meeting what they perceive to be their everyday obligations to help specific others (duties of relational ethics) and to keep themselves safe. This suggests that “physical proximity” (understood as degree of penetration into the physical domain of the target research community) is an important factor in the ethics of actual practice in CEnR. Conclusions: CRWs often experience ethical complexities that are simply not in the realm of experience of most higher level researchers. How CRWs navigate conflicting ethical obligations can affect the quality and usefulness of the data collected and thereby affect communities by influencing policies informed by these data. Soliciting the perspectives of CRWs early in the process of research design and development is recommended to maximize the benefits achievable through CEnR.
接近、伦理困境和社区研究工作者
背景:在社区参与研究(CEnR)中,招募和数据收集通常分配给社区研究工作者(CRWs)。聘用crw是因为他们与目标社区的关系密切,并被认为更能成功地从边缘人群中招募和收集数据。在国际背景下描述了crw面临的价值冲突和个人压力;然而,在美国,对这些问题的关注较少。方法:对crw进行质性访谈,了解他们的cnr经历。访谈使用Atlas.ti进行转录和编码。结果:数据表明,在社区街道和参与者家中等由参与者控制的环境中工作的crw更有可能面临遵循研究规范与履行他们认为的帮助特定他人的日常义务(关系伦理责任)和保护自己安全之间的冲突。这表明,“物理接近”(理解为对目标研究社区物理领域的渗透程度)是CEnR实际实践伦理的一个重要因素。结论:crw经常会遇到伦理复杂性,这是大多数高级研究人员所无法经历的。crw如何处理相互冲突的道德义务会影响所收集数据的质量和有用性,从而通过影响根据这些数据制定的政策来影响社区。建议在研究设计和开发过程的早期征求crw的观点,以最大限度地实现通过CEnR实现的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信