American Journal of Public Health
Volume 103, Issue 12 (December 2013)
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/toc/ajph/current

Ethical Community-Engaged Research: A Literature Review.      
Lisa Mikesell, Elizabeth Bromley, and Dmitry Khodyakov.
American Journal of Public Health: December 2013, Vol. 103, No. 12, pp. e7-e14.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301605
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301605
Abstract
Health research has relied on ethical principles, such as those of the Belmont Report, to protect the rights and well-being of research participants.
Community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, must also consider the rights and well-being of communities. This requires additional ethical considerations that have been extensively discussed but not synthesized in the CBPR literature.
We conducted a comprehensive thematic literature review and summarized empirically grounded discussions of ethics in CBPR, with a focus on the value of the Belmont principles in CBPR, additional essential components of ethical CBPR, the ethical challenges CBPR practitioners face, and strategies to ensure that CBPR meets ethical standards. Our study provides a foundation for developing a working definition and a conceptual model of ethical CBPR.

Ethical Research and Minorities
Mark A. Rothstein.
American Journal of Public Health, December 2013, Vol. 103, No. 12, pp. 2118-2118.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301390

Building Trust for Engagement of Minorities in Human Subjects Research: Is the Glass Half Full, Half Empty, or the Wrong Size?
Sandra C. Quinn, Nancy E. Kass, and Stephen B. Thomas.
American Journal of Public Health December 2013: Vol. 103, No. 12, pp. 2119-2121.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301685

Rethinking the Vulnerability of Minority Populations in Research.
Wendy Rogers and Margaret Meek Lange.
American Journal of Public Health: December 2013, Vol. 103, No. 12, pp. 2141-2146.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301200
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301200
Abstract
The Belmont Report, produced in 1979 by a United States government commission, includes minority populations among its list of vulnerable research participants. In this article, we consider some previous attempts to understand the vulnerability of minorities in research, and then provide our own account.
First we examine the question of the representation of minorities in research. Then we argue that the best understanding of minorities, vulnerability, and research will begin with a broad understanding of the risk of individual members of minority groups to poor health outcomes.    We offer a typology of vulnerability to help with this task.
Finally, we show how researchers should be guided by this broad analysis in the design and execution of their research.

Adapting Western Research Methods to Indigenous Ways of Knowing.
Vanessa W. Simonds and Suzanne Christopher.
American Journal of Public Health: December 2013, Vol. 103, No. 12, pp. 2185-2192.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.30115
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157
Abstract
Indigenous communities have long experienced exploitation by researchers and increasingly require participatory and decolonizing research processes. We present a case study of an intervention research project to exemplify a clash between Western research methodologies and Indigenous methodologies and how we attempted reconciliation. We then provide implications for future research based on lessons learned from Native American community partners who voiced concern over methods of Western deductive qualitative analysis. Decolonizing research requires constant reflective attention and action, and there is an absence of published guidance for this process. Continued exploration is needed for implementing Indigenous methods alone or in conjunction with appropriate Western methods when conducting research in Indigenous communities. Currently, examples of Indigenous methods and theories are not widely available in academic texts or published articles, and are often not perceived as valid.