This article examines challenges and barriers seemingly endemic to the research ethics review process. We argue that these challenges and barriers disempower community stakeholders in sex work research and that they put our studies and those who consent to participate in them at risk. To advance this position, we interrogate three of our own encounters with research ethics boards (REBs) in the context of current scholarship on meaningful collaborative research and REB roles and responsibilities in relation to sex work and other sensitive research. As these encounters illustrate, there is an urgent need for established REB processes to be opened up to allow for and respect non-academic expertise. We suggest that such policy and process revisions are particularly important given the growing requirement for meaningful stakeholder involvement in all aspects of studies that engage marginalized groups. In this new anti-oppressive collaborative framework, stakeholder community expertise thus informs study development and design, as well as the collection and analysis of data, and decisions regarding where and how study findings are to be shared. Research ethics review processes must be revised accordingly to acknowledge and give due consideration to community-based expertise. We conclude by proposing institutional and community-based strategies for resisting and revising current research ethics review structures and processes. Applying the lens of whore stigma to select REB encounters, this article contributes to existing research about ethical and anti-oppressive sex work research methods and methodologies, arguing that we must account for REB encounters in the growing body of theory that seeks to understand and articulate how best to conduct sex work research in partnership with sex workers.

Including both academic and sex work activist community partners, panel members will discuss established and developing practices and key findings from the Sex Work Activist Histories Projects’ first two years as we collected and archived sex work activist histories. We draw from feminist and Indigenous frameworks of ethical, affective, and relational accountability (among groups, between academics and non-academics involved in the project, and between people and their records/histories) to productively consider how project relationships might be cultivated that are mutually accountable to the varied and complex analytical and affective positionalities of project members as they work together.