| Summary: | Across disciplines, qualitative researchers have documented epistemological and practical tensions in the ethical review of community-based and participatory research, with many arguing that ethics committees’ decisions perpetuate the exclusion of marginalised communities from research engagement. In the existing literature, the research team and the ethics committee are often characterised as staunch opponents. Conversely, in our recent qualitative research addressing communication about sexuality with young people with cerebral palsy who use communication methods other than speech (augmentative and alternative communication), we found that constructive collaboration between researchers and committee members yielded novel insights. Co-authored by a multi-disciplinary research team and the former chair of a Human Research Ethics Committee, this reflexive case study identified three key tensions which arose in the ethical review of research involving this purportedly marginalised population, which reflected the wider importance of trust. We propose a series of practical recommendations to support productive collaboration in the pursuit of safe, inclusive and community-driven research.
|
|---|