This article explores a range of ethical issues that arise in community-based participatory research (CBPR), drawing on literature and examples from practice. The experience of CBPR practitioners adds further weight to the growing critique by many other social researchers of regulatory approaches to research ethics (which focus on rule following in accordance with research governance frameworks, codes of conduct and ethics review procedures). Yet, whilst many of the ethical challenges in CBPR are common to social research generally (informed consent, anonymity, issues of ownership of data and findings), the dynamic, complex and value-based nature of CBPR gives them particular prominence. There are also specific issues relating to the ethics of partnership working, collaboration, blurring of boundaries between researchers and researched, community rights, community conflict and democratic participation that are more frequently encountered in CBPR. Four practice examples are used to demonstrate this argument. These are taken from a young women's community allotment, a community organisation researching poverty, a youth peer research project and a museumbased digital storytelling project. The article concludes that current institutional ethical codes, guidelines and ethical review procedures are not particularly well-suited to CBPR, in that they adopt principle-based and regulatory approaches to ethics; whereas character-and relationshipbased approaches to ethics are also very important in CBPR, which is adopted by many researchers with a strong value commitment to social justice.

In this study data from all studies identified as meeting the selection criteria were mathematically integrated to determine the effect of grade-level retention on elementary and/or junior high school pupils. When each effect size calculated was treated equally, a grand mean effect size of -.37 was obtained indicating that, on the average, promoted children scored .37 standard deviation units higher than retained children on the various outcome measures. When the effect sizes within each study were first averaged so that each study could be given equal weight, a grand mean of -.34 was obtained. By using the effect sizes from only those studies in which the promoted and nonpromoted pupils had been matched, a grand mean of -.38 was calculated. The high degree of consistency in these measures lends credibility to the validity of these findings.In addition to the grand means, effects sizes were calculated on various dependent variable measures, including academic achievement (further subdivided into various areas), personal adjustment (which included selfconcept, social adjustment, and emotional adjustment), and attitude toward school, behavior, and attendance. In all cases, the outcomes for promoted pupils were more positive than for retained pupils.

No abstract

This is the executive summary of The British Society for Rheumatology biologic DMARD safety guidelines in inflammatory arthritis, doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/key208.

No abstract