This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1098214007313023v1 29/1/73    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Alexander, L. B. Articles by Richman, K. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ethical Dilemmas in Evaluations Using Indigenous Research Workers

Bryn Mawr College, lalexand{at}brynmawr.edu

Kenneth A. Richman

Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

This article addresses ethical dilemmas experienced by street-level research and evaluation workers recruiting and gathering data in community-based research projects. The authors focus on a subgroup of street-level research workers, whom they call research extenders (REs), employed because they share important characteristics with the target population. Like other street-level research workers, some REs are single role (only do research work) and others are dual role (do research work and provide services). They discuss relevant literature and findings from pilot focus groups exploring how REs understand responsible ethical conduct in their research work in the community. REs face ethical issues somewhat different from those of more traditional, non-indigenous street-level research workers. These issues increase social risk for study participants and could compromise the validity of data. Researchers need to be aware of and address the distinctive set of ethical issues raised by research and evaluation projects employing indigenous, street-level research workers.

Key Words: ethical dilemmas • indigenous research workers • research extenders

This version was published on March 1, 2008

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 29, No. 1, 73-85 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1098214007313023


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?