Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Harm Reduction Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00818-6
METHODOLOGY Open Access
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco
mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Harm Reduction Journal
Community-Engaged Research Ethics
Training (CERET): developing accessible
andrelevant research ethics training
forcommunity-based participatory research
withpeople withlived andliving experience
using illicit drugs andharm reduction workers
Jeffrey Morgan1,2*, Scott D. Neufeld3, Heather Holroyd2,4, Jean Ruiz5, Tara Taylor6,7, Seonaid Nolan2,8 and
Stephanie Glegg2,9
Abstract
Background Community-based participatory research (CBPR) can directly involve non-academic community
members in the research process. Existing resources for research ethics training can be inaccessible to team members
without an academic background and do not attend to the full spectrum of ethical issues that arise through com-
munity-engaged research practices. We detail an approach to capacity building and training in research ethics in the
context of CBPR with people who use(d) illicit drugs and harm reduction workers in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside
neighborhood.
Methods A project team comprised of academic and community experts in CBPR, research ethics, and harm reduc-
tion met over five months to develop the Community-Engaged Research Ethics Training (CERET). The group distilled
key principles and content from federal research ethics guidelines in Canada, and developed case examples to situate
the principles in the context of research with people who use(d) illicit drugs and harm reduction workers. In addition
to content related to federal ethics guidelines, the study team integrated additional content related to ethical issues
that arise through community-based research, and ethical principles for research in the Downtown Eastside. Work-
shops were evaluated using a pre-post questionnaire with attendees.
Results Over the course of six weeks in January–February 2020, we delivered three in-person workshops for twelve
attendees, most of whom were onboarding as peer research assistants with a community-based research project.
Workshops were structured around key principles of research ethics: respect for persons, concern for welfare, and
justice. The discussion-based format we deployed allowed for the bi-directional exchange of information between
facilitators and attendees. Evaluation results suggest the CERET approach was effective, and attendees gained confi-
dence and familiarity with workshop content across learning objectives.
*Correspondence:
Jeffrey Morgan
jeffrey.morgan@bccsu.ubc.ca
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 2 of 9
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
Conclusions The CERET initiative offers an accessible approach to fulfill institutional requirements while building
capacity in research ethics for people who use(d) drugs and harm reduction workers. This approach recognizes com-
munity members as partners in ethical decision making throughout the research process and is aligned with values
of CBPR. Building capacity around intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of research ethics can prepare all study team
members to attend to ethical issues that arise from CBPR.
Keywords Research ethics, Community-based participatory research, Harm reduction, People who use drugs,
Rresearch ethics pedagogy
Introduction
Community members in a wide array of “heavily
researched communities” regularly experience research
as an extractive, exploitative, and harmful practice
[1–3]. One key response has been the wider adoption
of community-based participatory research (CBPR)
approaches, and an international movement toward the
greater inclusion of people with lived and living experi-
ence with conditions that regularly attract researcher
interest (e.g., poverty, substance use, mental health, HIV,
etc.). is movement is often summarized as an ethic of
“nothing about us without us” [4]. Employing non-aca-
demic community members as “peer research assistants”
is one strategy for involving people with lived and liv-
ing experience in CBPR [1, 5, 6] While the development
of approaches in the realm of CBPR has increased the
involvement and, at times, empowerment of non-aca-
demic community members in knowledge production,
one key arena remains almost exclusively the purview of
academic experts and institutional gatekeepers: research
ethics.
“Research ethics” is commonly understood as navi-
gating institutional approval processes and adhering
to guidelines for human subject protections, such as
those outlined in the Belmont report [7], or Tri-Council
Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involv-
ing Humans (TCPS2) [8]. Many academic institutions
require that study team members who interact with
research participants or data receive training in research
ethics, usually documented by a certificate after complet-
ing a standardized, online, and self-administered tutorial
[9]. For example, completion of the “Course on Research
Ethics” (CORE) tutorial, offered by the Canadian Panel
on Research Ethics, is commonly held as an institutional
requirement in Canada for study team members listed in
the research ethics application [9, 10]. e Collaborative
Institute Training Initiative (CITI Program) is another
online training and certification resource commonly
accepted in the United States (US) and Canada [11, 12].
ese training resources are overwhelmingly biomedical
in focus (i.e., emphasizing ethical concerns at the indi-
vidual, rather than community level), and geared toward
academic researchers, students, and members of research
ethics boards (REBs) (i.e., institutional review boards)
[13, 14]. For example, the CITI Program tutorial has been
critiqued for being “cumbersome, inaccessible” and “not
designed with community research partners in mind”
[12].
In the context of CBPR, peer research assistants may
face ethical decisions “in the field” and confront moral
issues in their research practice [15–17], such as dur-
ing participant recruitment and data collection. Some
of these ethical issues may also be unique to their com-
munity experience. For example, peer research assistants
may hold dual relationships with research participants
(e.g., peers, co-workers), which can pose challenges for
obtaining consent, protecting entrusted information, and
ensuring integrity of the data collected [18, 19]. Given
this context, accessible and relevant research ethics train-
ing for all study team members is essential for ethical and
inclusive CBPR [12].
To address the limitations of standardized tutorials,
a variety of approaches to research ethics training have
been developed across different research contexts. For
example, Jetter et al. [20] supplemented a self-admin-
istered research ethics course designed for university
researchers with a two-part “round table seminar” to
discuss the content of the Belmont report and highlight
issues of particular relevance to American Indian/Alas-
kan Native communities. Yonas etal. [12] created flex-
ible research ethics training resources for academic and
community partners that can be delivered in-person or
online and have been deployed in a wide variety of CBPR
contexts in the US. Building on these contextualized and
tailored accounts in the US, in this article, we present a
methodology for the development and implementation
of a relevant and accessible approach to research eth-
ics training tailored to CBPR with people who use(d)
illicit drugs and harm reduction workers in Vancouver,
Canada, which we refer to as the Community-Engaged
Research Ethics Training (CERET) initiative:
The CERET initiative
The CERET initiative is part of an ongoing effort to
build capacity around research ethics in Vancou-
ver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES), a neighborhood
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 3 of 9
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
characterized by impoverishment, resilience, social
activism, multiple public health epidemics, and sub-
jected to a disproportionate amount of research [1,
21]. Previous work building research ethics capacity in
the DTES has been described elsewhere [2, 22, 23]. In
2018, university researchers and community members
participated in a series workshops on the harms and
benefits of research in the DTES neighborhood. This
work was summarized in a shared vision of commu-
nity ethics for respectful and responsive research prac-
tices, entitled: Research 101: A Manifesto for Ethical
Research in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside [24].
The impetus for the CERET initiative arose from
the Overdose Prevention Peer Research Assistant’’
(OPPRA) project, a CBPR study about the resilience,
stability, and wellbeing of frontline harm reduction
workers. The OPPRA study engaged frontline harm
reduction workers and/or people who use(d) illicit
drugs as peer research assistants and was led col-
laboratively by representatives from the Overdose
Prevention Society, and academic researchers affili-
ated with the University of British Columbia and
British Columbia Centre on Substance Use. Through
weekly meetings and capacity-building workshops,
OPPRA members were involved at every step of the
research process, including study design, participant
recruitment, data gathering, analysis, and knowledge
translation.
Training in research ethics was identified as an early
priority for the OPPRA project, as both an institu-
tional requirement and an important capacity-building
activity. We found that the existing research ethics
training resources, specifically the CORE tutorial, did
not meet the needs of our study. Many OPPRA mem-
bers had limited access to the internet or computer
devices, which made completing the standard online
CORE tutorial difficult or infeasible. Furthermore,
the language and jargon used in the modules were
inaccessible to team members without an academic
background.
In addition to accessibility issues, we found that
existing resources did not reflect the ethical issues
most relevant to CBPR, peer research assistants, or
the unique context of the DTES [24]. Finally, it was
important to the OPPRA team that capacity build-
ing around research ethics promoted dialog and the
bi-directional exchange of knowledge, including hon-
oring the lived experience of many OPPRA members
as previous participants (or “subjects”) of research in
the DTES, including their experiences of (un)ethical
research practices. The development, implementation,
and evaluation of the CERET workshops are described
below.
Methods
Workshop design
To develop the CERET workshops, university-affiliated
researchers, staff from a university-affiliated REB, staff
from a university unit focused on community engage-
ment, and a community leader and expert in harm reduc-
tion met regularly over the course of five months with a
shared goal to develop an accessible and relevant research
ethics training. e knowledge exchange between diverse
team members was integral to the development of the
CERET workshops.
Workshops were designed to align with guidelines for
the ethical conduct of research in Canada, outlined in the
TCPS2 [8]. Drawing from our respective expertise, the
CERET team attempted to identify and distill the most
relevant concepts from the TCPS2 and CORE tutorial
that was most applicable to CBPR and behavioral (i.e.,
not clinical or genetic) research. As a result, some chap-
ters of the TCPS2 were de-emphasized or excluded (e.g.,
Ch. 12, 13), while others were given greater emphasis
(e.g., Ch. 9, 10). Workshops were structured around the
TCPS2’s three “core principles”: “Respect for Persons”;
“Concern for Welfare”; and “Justice.” [8].
To tailor the training to the local context of the DTES,
the group augmented content from the TCPS2 by inte-
grating material from the Research 101 Manifesto [24].
We also drew from personal experiences navigating ethi-
cal issues in our own research to develop and integrate
content related to ethical issues that can arise during
CBPR, the involvement of peer research assistants, and
research with people who use(d) illicit drugs. Workshops
used real and fictitious case studies based on research in
the DTES to promote discussion, and to provide practical
examples of ethical decision-making “in the field.”
e CERET initiative was delivered over six weeks
(January–February 2020), as three, three-hour in-per-
son workshops, each with a thirty-minute break. Each
workshop was dedicated to one of the three core TCPS2
principles (“Respect for Persons,” “Concern for Welfare,”
and “Justice”). e workshops were held at an accessible
location in the DTES. Attendees were provided an hono-
rarium of $40, coffee, and lunch for their participation in
each workshop.
Workshop evaluation
Before and after each workshop, attendees self-reported
their confidence and familiarity with the learning objec-
tives/content on a 5-point Likert scale, with anchors on
1 (not at all confident) and 5 (extremely confident). Aver-
age item rating, and absolute difference, for each learn-
ing objective in the pre- and post-workshop period was
computed. e lowest and highest score (i.e., range) for
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 4 of 9
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
each learning objective pre- and post-workshop period is
presented.
Results
Nine OPPRA members and four Research 101 Mani-
festo co-authors attended the three CERET workshops.
All attendees had lived or living experience using illicit
drugs and/or in frontline harm reduction. e following
sections describe the topical focus and approach used
in each workshop. Relevant workshop content that cor-
responds with the TCPS2 is noted by the chapter where
applicable. Learning objectives of each workshop, and
findings from the workshop evaluation, are presented in
Table1.
Workshop 1: respect forpersons
Workshop 1 was anchored to the core ethical principle
“Respect for Persons,” which incorporated the dual moral
obligations to respect autonomy, and to “protect those
with developing, impaired, or diminished autonomy” [8
p. 6]. Respecting autonomy was presented in relation to
obtaining voluntary, informed, and ongoing consent (Ch.
3: “e Consent Process”). Discussion was grounded in
the context of the DTES whenever possible. For example,
balancing fair compensation with the potential for coer-
cion was discussed with respect to economic marginali-
zation experienced by many DTES residents. Participants
were also guided in a critical discussion of the “informed
consent form” and considered ways consent can extend
beyond a signature on a form (e.g., ongoing consent) [25].
Along with informed consent, workshop 1 also
included a discussion of foreseeable research risks and
benefits. Drawing from examples of research with peo-
ple who use(d) illicit drugs, participants were guided in
a discussion of social, psychological, behavioral, physi-
cal, and economic research risks. For example, the risk
for research to re-traumatize participants or cause psy-
chological distress was discussed. Extending conceptu-
alizations of risks and harms beyond the individual, the
discussion also considered research harms that can be
Table 1 Familiarity with workshop learning objectives content pre- and post-workshop, and absolute difference
a n = 12 attendees participated in the evaluation in the pre-period
b n = 11 attendees participated in the evaluation in the post-period
Workshop Learning objectives Average score pre-
workshop (range)aAverage score post-
workshop (range)bAbsolute dierence in mean
scores for pre- and post-
workshop
Workshop 1: respect for persons 1. Explain the core principles and
guidelines for ethical research in
the TCPS2
1.9 (1–3) 3.7 (3–5) 1.8
2. Explain the role of an REB 2.5 (1–4) 4.2 (3–5) 1.7
3. Identify possible risks of research
to individuals and communities 3.0 (1–4) 4.3 (3–5) 1.3
4. Describe the components of
informed consent 2.7 (1–4) 3.7 (1–5) 1.0
Workshop 2: concern for welfare 1. Explain the concept of concern
for welfare 3.3 (1–5) 4.5 (3–5) 1.2
2. Identify strategies to maintain
confidentiality 2.9 (1–5) 4.3 (3–5) 1.4
3. Understand the importance of
including people with lived and
living experience in the research
process
3.6 (1–5) 4.6 (3–5) 1.0
4. Explain the four components of
ethical research in the DTES, as out-
lined in the Research 101 Manifesto
3.3 (1–5) 4.2 (3–5) 0.9
Workshop 3: justice 1. Explain the importance of fair-
ness and equity in research 2.8 (1–4) 3.7 (2–5) 0.9
2. Identify factors that contribute to
participant vulnerability 2.7 (1–4) 4.1 (3–5) 1.4
3. Understand the concept of dual
relationships and how disclosing
conflicts of interest is important for
conducting ethical research
3.1 (1.4) 4.2 (2–5) 1.1
4. Communicate the key principles
of TCPS2 2.8 (1–4) 3.7 (2–5) 0.9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 5 of 9
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
experienced by communities, with a focus on the poten-
tial for exploitation, stigmatization, and community con-
flict [26].
e concept of developing, impaired, or diminished
capacity was discussed in relation to vulnerability, or the
ability to safeguard one’s own interests [8]. Attendees
were asked to brainstorm situations and research con-
texts in which people who use(d) illicit drugs may experi-
ence vulnerability during research to a greater or lesser
degree. e potential for limited access to social goods,
rights, opportunities, and power was discussed in rela-
tion to vulnerability, while stressing that no individual or
group should be considered inherently vulnerable in all
circumstances [27].
Workshop 2: concern forwelfare
Workshop 2 focused on “Concern for Welfare” and intro-
duced the Research 101 Manifesto [24]. e TCPS2 con-
ceptualizes concern for welfare as the impact of research
on an individual’s “physical, mental, and spiritual health
as well as physical, economic and social circumstances”
[8 p. 7]. We used the case example of a well-known
heroin-assisted therapy study in the DTES [28, 29] to
introduce the concept of clinical trials (Ch. 11: “Clinical
Trials”). e welfare of participants was discussed in rela-
tion to not extending heroin-assisted therapy to partici-
pants after the trial concluded [28].
Concern for welfare also includes the control of infor-
mation about participants in research, and workshop 2
introduced concepts of confidentiality and privacy (Ch. 5:
“Privacy and Confidentiality”). Privacy is defined as “an
individual’s right to be free from intrusion or interference
by others” [8 p. 78] and the ethical duty of confidentiality
is defined as “the obligation to safeguard entrusted infor-
mation” [8, p. 78]. Attendees discussed sensitive informa-
tion that is commonly collected for research with people
who use(d) illicit drugs, such as substance use, methods
of income generation, and HIV status, and imagined
harms that could arise if privacy or confidentiality was
compromised. Strategies for safeguarding information,
including physical (e.g., lock and key), administrative
(e.g., privacy training), and methodological (e.g., using
pseudonyms) approaches were described. Brainstorm-
ing types of information that are considered identifiable,
and how assembling different information can lead to re-
identification, rounded out the activity.
Discussion on material from the Research 101 Mani-
festo was led by some of its co-authors with lived and
living experience using illicit substances and harm reduc-
tion work. Content included an overview of the dispro-
portionate volume of research studies in the DTES [21],
the potential and pitfalls of research practices, and princi-
ples of community ethics as outlined in the Research 101
Manifesto [24]. e four key principles of the Research
101 Manifesto included: (1) researcher transparency, or
an acknowledgment that researchers in the DTES should
be reflexive about their positionality, motivations, and
assumptions before developing research partnerships; (2)
community-based ethical review, or a call to consider the
potential differences between “institutional” ethics (e.g.,
TCPS2) and “community” ethics [30]; (3) the respectful
involvement of peer research assistants and community
members through the research process; and (4) reciproc-
ity, or the expectation for researchers to not only return
research findings to community, but to also consider how
communities can benefit from research [24].
Workshop 2 ended with a case example of a fictitious
arts-based body mapping research project about the
impact of stigma on people who use(d) illicit drugs in the
DTES. e group discussed risks of psychological harms
associated with sensitive topics, such as stigma, the sec-
ondary use of data, research outputs (e.g., “What should
happen to the participants’ body maps after the study is
complete?”), and potential threats to confidentiality and
re-identification from assembling and presenting a vari-
ety of information about an individual.
Workshop 3: justice
e third and final workshop was anchored to the ethical
principle of “Justice,” while also re-visiting the key TCPS2
principles, and summarizing all three workshops’ central
takeaways. Justice is conceptualized as “the obligation to
treat people fairly and equitably” [8 p. 9], including the
just distribution of benefits and burdens of participa-
tion in research (TCPS2, Ch. 4: “Fairness and Equity in
Research Participation”). e just distribution of benefits
and burdens of research was a common theme through-
out the three workshops, particularly in relation to the
DTES as an “over-researched” community, and the ethi-
cal principle of reciprocity (i.e., how communities and
researchers can mutually benefit from research) [24]. e
workshop also examined inclusion and exclusion crite-
ria in research, including groups (e.g., women, children,
older people) who are often excluded from participating
in research, and how inclusion and exclusion criteria are
implemented for research about substance use (e.g., clini-
cal diagnoses, self-reported behaviors) [28].
Ethical issues related to dual roles and relationships,
or perceived conflicts of interest (Ch. 7: “Conflicts of
Interest”), were also addressed. Conflicts of interest may
impede the autonomous choice of an individual to par-
ticipate in research [8]. e workshop contextualized the
concept of conflicts of interest to CBPR practices and
the involvement of peer research assistants. Attendees
described the benefits, and ethical challenges, of being an
“insider” within a community. e workshop concluded
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 6 of 9
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
with a case example of a fictitious qualitative research
study about frontline harm reduction work experiences,
in which peer research assistants with experience as harm
reduction workers participated in study recruitment,
data collection, and analysis. Attendees brainstormed the
dual roles they may hold (e.g., as harm reduction workers
and as peer research assistants) and discussed opportuni-
ties to avoid and manage conflicts of interest.
Discussion
Community-based participatory research can involve
non-academic community members in roles that impact
study safety and integrity [18]. People with lived and liv-
ing experience are commonly employed as peer research
assistants and may be involved in study recruitment, data
collection, and analysis [1]. In our experience, these prac-
tices raise an institutional requirement for training in
research ethics, although existing approaches are largely
inaccessible or inappropriate for non-academic team
members. In this article, we described an alternative
approach to research ethics training that we deployed for
a CBPR project in Vancouver’s DTES with people who
use(d) illicit drugs and harm reduction workers. We col-
laborated with our institutional REB to ensure that our
workshops met necessary institutional requirements.
Evaluation results suggest that the workshops were
acceptable, and contributed to increased confidence in
learning objectives among attendees. Our approach may
serve as a model that could be adopted for CBPR with
people who use(d) drugs and harm reduction workers in
other contexts.
Although ethical principles for the responsible conduct
of research outlined in the TCPS2 and Belmont report
aim to guide researchers in ethical decision-making, “eth-
ically important moments” often occur in the field [16,
31]. Situating research ethics training within a particular
research context can help prepare study team members
to identify and respond to ethical issues as they arise in
practice [32]. e CERET workshops integrated tailored
case studies and illustrative examples, equipping attend-
ees to identify and attend to ethical issues that might
arise throughout research with people who use(d) illicit
drugs and harm reduction workers.
Along with providing much-needed context for apply-
ing ethical principles in research with people who use(d)
illicit drugs, the CERET workshops also attended to
dimensions of research ethics not addressed in guidelines
for the ethical conduct of research. Community-based
researchers have long advocated for broadened concep-
tualizations of research ethics beyond procedural ethics,
and challenged how academic institutions have defined
what “counts” as relevant dimensions of research eth-
ics [14, 30]. Schienke etal. [32] have characterized three
overlapping dimensions of research ethics: “procedural,”
“intrinsic,” and “extrinsic” ethics. Traditional research
ethics training and institutional processes have focused
primarily on “procedural” ethics (i.e., guidelines for the
ethical conduct of research and review procedures),
while neglecting “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” ethical issues.
“Intrinsic” ethical issues are internal to a mode of
inquiry (e.g., a given research approach) and arise from
values and assumptions embedded in scientific practice
[32]. e CERET workshops attended to intrinsic ethi-
cal issues by integrating content from the Research 101
Manifesto, which calls on researchers to reflect on their
positionality, privilege, and assumptions, and consider
how these factors relate to motivations for conduct-
ing the research, or selecting a research question. ese
factors are representative of ethical values and choices
embedded within research. e Research 101 Manifesto
also calls on researchers working in the DTES to consider
how community members can be integrated respectfully
throughout the research process. For example, ethical
issues that arise from involving peer research assistants
were discussed throughout the CERET workshops.
“Extrinsic” ethical issues are those external to knowl-
edge production and consider the societal impacts of
scientific research [32]. Practitioners of CBPR are well-
equipped to address extrinsic ethical issues, as CBPR is
fundamentally defined by its relationship to community
[33]. Discussion of extrinsic ethical issues in CERET
workshops centered around concepts like research risks
and reciprocity. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of
research, including the TCPS2 [13], predominantly oper-
ate within a biomedical framework focused on risks to
individuals, and overlooking risks posed to communi-
ties [14]. Following Ross etal. [26] the CERET workshops
viewed community level risks as including the potential
for research findings to stigmatize social identities and
communities, and to disrupt community cohesion or
undermine the group’s moral or sociopolitical authority.
On the other hand, the potential for communities to
benefit from research was presented as the ethical prin-
ciple of reciprocity. e Research 101 Manifesto opera-
tionalized reciprocity as not only the ethical imperative
for research findings to be returned to community, but
also as a call for researchers to consider how commu-
nities can benefit from research [24]. Reciprocity is an
extrinsic ethical issue, because it requires that research-
ers take part in reflexive and anticipatory thinking about
how their research activities contribute to the goals and
values of the communities in which they operate [32].
Despite being often over looked in traditional research
ethics training, intrinsic and extrinsic ethical issues are of
ethical and epistemological significance, and are relevant
to all community partners in research, regardless of their
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 7 of 9
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
direct involvement in roles that impact study safety and
integrity.
One limitation of our approach to research ethics train-
ing was that it was relatively resource-intensive. As Jetter
etal. [20] describe, true partnerships between academic
partners and communities require significant time and
resources. We added new content beyond what was insti-
tutionally required in order to attend to the broad spec-
trum of procedural, intrinsic, and extrinsic ethical issues
that arise in the context of CBPR. Furthermore, to make
the CERET workshops accessible, we delivered work-
shops in person, over multiple days, and provided food
and honoraria. e discussion-based format allowed for
a bi-directional exchange of knowledge and recognized
that all attendees had unique, relevant expertise across
the ethical dimensions of research. Four workshop par-
ticipants were co-authors of the Research 101 Manifesto,
and co-facilitated portions of the workshops. Ultimately,
we felt that taking time to meaningfully build capacity
for research ethics was most in line with our CBPR prac-
tice, and would help empower non-academic commu-
nity members to make ethical decisions throughout the
project.
Our approach to community-engaged research eth-
ics training differs from what we have observed in some
practices, where academic researchers request that non-
academic community members be exempt from research
ethics training, not listed on ethics applications, or rele-
gated to a nebulous list of “research personnel” for whom
research ethics training may not be required. Although
these practices may be understandable in the absence of
accessible alternatives, we believe approaches that pro-
mote capacity-building in ethics can encourage greater
involvement of community in all dimensions of research
processes, including arenas of knowledge production
often considered to be the purview of academic experts
and institutional gatekeepers. Ultimately, this involve-
ment can strengthen the integrity of the research process,
by integrating ethical perspectives beyond those of aca-
demic team members.
Conclusion
Community-based participatory research often involves
community members in roles that can necessitate train-
ing in research ethics. Existing approaches to research
ethics training, often accomplished through self-guided
online tutorials, can be inaccessible to study team mem-
bers without an academic background, and can be experi-
enced or perceived as a barrier to community engagement
in research [11, 16]. Additionally, standardized trainings
address a relatively narrow set of ethical issues, mostly
related to guidelines for the ethical conduct of research
(e.g., TCPS2, Belmont report), and may neglect ethical
issues most relevant to CBPR [13, 14]. e CERET work-
shops offered an approach to fulfill an institutional require-
ment for training in research ethics, and meaningfully build
capacity with people who use(d) illicit drugs and harm
reduction workers.
In alignment with principles of CBPR, building capacity
in research ethics recognizes and substantiates community
members as ethical agents and partners in ethical decision-
making throughout the research process. While in some
cases, community members may be directly involved in
study roles with clear implications for participant safety
and data integrity, ethical dimensions of research and ethi-
cally important moments occur throughout the research
process. Even when community members are not engaged
in capacities that necessitate any institutional requirement
for research ethics training, building capacity around the
intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of research can prepare
all study team members to attend to ethical issues that arise
from CBPR.
Abbreviations
CBPR Community-based participatory research
TCPS2 Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involv-
ing Humans
CORE Course on research ethics
CITI Collaborative Institute Training Initiative
US United States
REB Research ethics board
CERET Community-Engaged Research Ethics Training
DTES Downtown Eastside
OPPRA Overdose Prevention Peer Research Assistant
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Jule Chapman, Samona Marsh, Nicolas Leech-
Crier, and Jim McLeod who co-facilitated Workshop 2, and all co-authors of
Research 101: A Manifesto for Ethical Research in the Downtown Eastside. We
are grateful to all OPPRA members for their participation in the workshops.
Author contributions
JM drafted the manuscript, with significant contributions and revisions from
SDN, SG, HH, and JR. JM, TT, HH, SDN, and JR conceived of, created, and
delivered the workshops. SG designed and implemented evaluation activities
and provided feedback on the workshops. JM, TT, SG, and SN conceived
of the research project. All authors reviewed and approved the submitted
manuscript.
Funding
The CERET initiative and OPPRA project were funded by a Vancouver Founda-
tion Participatory Action Research Grant. JM is supported by a Vanier Canada
Graduate Scholarship. SG was supported through a Fellowship Award from
the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Availability of data and materials
Workshop presentation slides, facilitator notes, and a facilitator’s guide are
available from the corresponding author upon request. Data generated from
the evaluation of workshops are not publicly available due to privacy concerns
related to the small sample size.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 8 of 9
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Anonymous pre-post questionnaires were deemed by the institutional
research ethics board to fall under the purview of program evaluation and not
require research ethics approval.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author details
1 School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206
East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada. 2 BC Centre on Substance Use,
400-1045 Howe St., Vancouver, BC V6Z 2A9, Canada. 3 Department of Psy-
chology, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON L2S
3A1, Canada. 4 University of British Columbia, Learning Exchange, 612 Main
St, Vancouver, BC V6A 2V3, Canada. 5 University of British Columbia, Office
of Research Ethics, 6190 Agronomy Rd., Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada. 6 Over-
dose Prevention Society, 390 Columbia St., Vancouver, BC V6A 4J1, Canada.
7 SpencerCreo Foundation, 610 Main St, Vancouver, BC V6A 2V3, Canada.
8 Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2775 Laurel Street,
Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada. 9 Occupational Science and Occupational
Therapy, University of British Columbia, T325-2211 Westbrook Mall, Vancouver,
BC V6T 2B5, Canada.
Received: 13 April 2023 Accepted: 27 June 2023
References
1. Damon W, Callon C, Wiebe L, Small W, Kerr T, McNeil R. Community-based
participatory research in a heavily researched inner city neighbourhood:
perspectives of people who use drugs on their experiences as peer
researchers. Soc Sci Med. 2017;176:85–92.
2. Neufeld S, Chapman J, Crier N, Marsh S, McLeod J, Deane L. Research 101:
a process for developing local guidelines for ethical research in heavily
researched communities. Harm Reduct J. 2019;16:41.
3. Simon C, Brothers S, Strichartz K, Coulter A, Voyles N, Herdlein A, et al. We
are the researched, the researchers, and the discounted: the experiences
of drug user activists as researchers. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;98: 103364.
4. Jürgens R. “Nothing about us without us”—greater, meaningful involve-
ment of people who use illegal drugs: a public health, ethical, and
human rights imperative, International edition. Toronto: Canadian HIV/
AIDS Legal Network, International HIV/AIDS Alliance, Open Society
Institute. 2005. https:// canad acomm ons. ca/ artif acts/ 12249 17/ nothi ng-
about- us- witho ut- us/. Accessed 31 Mar 2023.
5. Kaida A, Carter A, Nicholson V, Lemay J, O’Brien N, Greene S, et al. Hiring,
training, and supporting Peer Research Associates: operationalizing
community-based research principles within epidemiological studies by,
with, and for women living with HIV. Harm Reduct J. 2019;16:47.
6. Ibáñez-Carrasco F, Watson JR, Tavares J. Supporting peer researchers: rec-
ommendations from our lived experience/expertise in community-based
research in Canada. Harm Reduct J. 2019;16:55.
7. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedi-
cal and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and
guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Department
of Health and Human Services; 1979. https:// www. hhs. gov/ ohrp/ sites/
defau lt/ files/ the- belmo nt- report- 508c_ FINAL. pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2023.
8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research
Involving Humans (TCPS2 2018). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2018. Available
from: https:// ethics. gc. ca/ eng/ docum ents/ tcps2- 2018- en- inter active-
final. pdf.
9. University of British Columbia. Online Tutorials + Training. Office of
Research Ethics. https:// ethics. resea rch. ubc. ca/ educa tion- train ing/ online-
tutor ials- train ing. Accessed 31 Mar 2023.
10. Panel on Research Ethics. TCPS 2: CORE-2022 (Course on Research Ethics).
https:// tcps2 core. ca/ welco me. Accessed 31 Mar 2023.
11. CITI Program. CITI Program. CITI Program. https:// about. citip rogram. org.
Accessed 31 Mar 2023.
12. Yonas MA, Jaime MC, Barone J, Valenti S, Documét P, Ryan CM, Miller E.
Community partnered research ethics training in practice: a collaborative
approach to certification. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11:97–105.
13. Bell K. The more things change, the more they stay the same: the TCPS
2 and the Institutional Ethical Oversight of Social Science Research
in Canada. In: Van den Hoonaard WC, Hamilton A, editors. The ethics
rupture: exploring alternatives to formal research-ethics review. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press; 2016. p. 189–205.
14. Flicker S, Travers R, Guta A, McDonald S, Meagher A. Ethical dilemmas in
community-based participatory research: recommendations for institu-
tional review boards. J Urban Health. 2007;84(4):478–93.
15. Schrag B. Teaching research ethics: Can web-based instruction satisfy
appropriate pedagogical objectives? Sci Eng Ethics. 2005;11(3):347–66.
16. Tuana N. Leading with ethics, aiming for policy: new opportunities for
philosophy of science. Synthese. 2010;177(3):471–92.
17. Westfall JM, Zittleman L, Felzien M, Ringel M, Lakin A, Nease D. High Plains
Research network Community Advisory Council. Institutional review
board training when patients and community members are engaged as
researchers. Fam Pract. 2017;34(3):301–4.
18. Anderson EE, Solomon S, Heitman E, DuBois JM, Fisher CB, Kost RG, Law-
less ME, Ramset C, Jones B, Ammerman A, Ross LF. Research ethics educa-
tion for community-engaged research: a review and research Agenda. J
Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012;7(2):3–19.
19. Greene S. Peer research assistantships and the ethics of reciproc-
ity in community-based research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics.
2013;8(2):141–52.
20. Jetter KM, Yarborough M, Cassady DL, Styne DM. Building research
capacity with members of underserved American Indian/Alaskan Native
Communities: training in research ethics and the protection of human
subjects. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(3):419–25.
21. McKay A. Housing, building, and neighbourhood influences on the expe-
rience of home for long-term tenants of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
Vancouver, University of British Columbia; 2021. https:// open. libra ry. ubc.
ca/ colle ctions/ 24/ items/1. 03959 56. Accessed 31 Mar 2023.
22. Neufeld S, Chapman J, Crier N, Marsh S, McLeod J. Introducing the down-
town eastside community research ethics workshop: notes on a process
for community ethics review. In: Ethical issues in stakeholder engaged
health research. Springer (In press).
23. Neufeld S, Chapman J, Crier N, Marsh S, McLeod J. Changing the system:
steps towards empowering community governance of research ethics
in the downtown eastside of vancouver. In: Critical futures: community-
engaged research in a time of crisis and social transformation. University
of Toronto Press, Toronto (In press).
24. Boilevin L, Chapman J, Deane L, Doerksen C, Fresz G, Joe D, et al. Research
101 : A Manifesto for Ethical Research in the Downtown Eastside. 2019.
https:// open. libra ry. ubc. ca/ colle ctions/ 52387/ items/1. 03775 65. Accessed
31 Mar 2023.
25. Culhane D. Stories and plays: ethnography, performance and ethical
engagements. Anthropologica. 2011;53(2):257–74.
26. Ross LF, Loup A, Nelson RM, Botkin JR, Kost R, Smith GR, et al. Human
subjects protections in community-engaged research: a research ethics
framework. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010;5(1):5–17.
27. Bell K, Salmon A. What women who use drugs have to say about ethical
research: findings of an exploratory qualitative study. J Empir Res Hum
Res Ethics. 2011;6(4):84–98.
28. Boyd S, NAOMI Patients Association. Yet they failed to do so: recommen-
dations based on the experiences of NAOMI research survivors and a call
for action. Harm Reduct J. 2013;10:6.
29. Small D, Drucker E. Policy makers ignoring science and scientists ignoring
policy: the medical ethical challenges of heroin treatment. Harm Reduct
J. 2006;3:16.
30. Tuck E, Guishard M. Uncollapsing ethics: racialized sciencism, settler
coloniality, and an ethical framework of decolonial participatory action
research. In: Kress TM, Malott C, Porfilio B, editors. Critical constructions:
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 9 of 9
Morganetal. Harm Reduction Journal (2023) 20:86
•
fast, convenient online submission
•
thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field
•
rapid publication on acceptance
•
support for research data, including large and complex data types
•
gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations
maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year
•
At BMC, research is always in progress.
Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions
Ready to submit your research
Ready to submit your research
? Choose BMC and benefit from:
? Choose BMC and benefit from:
studies on education and society. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing;
2013.
31. Guillemin M, Gillam L. Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important
moments” in research. Qual Inq. 2004;10(2):261–80.
32. Schienke EW, Tuana N, Brown DA, Davis KJ, Keller K, Shortle JS, Stickler
M, Baum SD. The role of the national science foundation broader
impacts criterion in enhancing research ethics pedagogy. Soc Epistemol.
2009;23(3–4):317–36.
33. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based
research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.
Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19(1):173–202.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
Jerey Morgan is a PhD student in the UBC School of Population
and Public Health and graduate academic assistant with the BC Cen-
tre on Substance Use, with expertise in CBPR.
Scott D. Neufeld is a Lecturer in Community Psychology at Brock
University and co-author of the Research 101: A Manifesto for Ethical
Research in the Downtown Eastside, with expertise in CBPR.
Heather Holroyd is a staff member with the BC Centre on Sub-
stance Use, with expertise in CBPR.
Jean Ruiz is Senior Behavioural Research Ethics Analyst with the
UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board, with expertise in research
ethics.
Tara Taylor is a community activist and Chair of the Board of
Directors of the Overdose Prevention Society, with expertise in harm
reduction.
Seonaid Nolan is a clinician scientist with the BC Centre on Sub-
stance Use, with expertise in research with people who use(d) illicit
drugs.
Stephanie Glegg is an occupational therapist and Assistant Pro-
fessor in the UBC Department of Occupational Science and Occupa-
tional Therapy, with expertise in CBPR and program evaluation.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
