Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Trust and the ethical conduct of community-engaged research

Dmitry Khodyakov, Lisa Mikesell, Elizabeth Bromley


Background: Community-engaged research (CEnR) emphasizes equal participation of academic and community partners in research and seeks to improve public trust in science. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of rigorous empirical research on trust as a core component of ethical conduct of CEnR. Drawing on data collected from a project on the ethics of CEnR, this paper discusses the benefits and risks of trust and uses the concept of embeddedness to explain how public trust in science may be increased.

Argument: We argue that in developing and maintaining trust, partners must balance scientific rigor with community relevance and cultural appropriateness of research. They must strike a balance between working with the same limited pool of trusted partners, which can speed research but slow wider acceptance of science and extending their trust to new partners, which can broaden acceptance of science but slow research.

Conclusion: Practitioners may facilitate the development of trust in science by gradually expanding the pool of partners they choose their collaborators from.


Community-engaged research, community partners, cultural competency, embeddedness, health services research, person-centered healthcare, research ethics, respect, trust, trustworthy relationships

Full Text:



Ross, L.F., Loup, A., Nelson, R.M., Botkin, J.R., Kost, R., Smith Jr, G.R. & Gehlert, S. (2010). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: a research ethics framework. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5 (1) 5-17.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Khodyakov, D. (2007). Trust as a process: A three-dimensional approach. Sociology 41 (1) 115-133.

Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In: Trust. Making and breaking cooperative relations, Gambett, D., (Ed.), pp. 94-107. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Moreno-John, G., Gachie, A., Fleming, C.M., Napoles-Springer, A., Mutran, E., Manson, S.M. & Pérez-Stable, E.J. (2004). Ethnic minority older adults participating in clinical research developing trust. Journal of Aging and Health 16 (Supplement 5) 93S-123S.

Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A.K.H.G. & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health 98 (8) 1398-1406.

Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S.B. & St George, D.M.M. (2002). Distrust, race, and research. Archives of Internal Medicine 162 (21) 2458-2463.

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects Research. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Lopez, E.D., Sharma, D.K.B., Mekiana, D. & Ctibor, A. (2012). Forging a new legacy of trust in research with Alaska Native college students using CBPR. International Journal of Circumpolar Health 71, 18475.

Delemos, J.L. (2006). Community-based participatory research: changing scientific practice from research on communities to research with and for communities. Local Environment 11 (3) 329-338.

Schulz, A.J., Israel, B.A. & Lantz, P. (2003). Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning 26 (3) 249-262.

Belone, L., Lucero, J.E., Duran, B., Tafoya, G., Baker, E.A., Chan, D., Chang, C., Greene-Moton, E., Kelley, M.A. & Wallerstein, N. (2016). Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model: Community Partner Consultation and Face Validity. Qualitative Health Research 26 (1) 117-135.

Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Garlehner, G., Lohr, K.N., Griffith, D., Rhodes, S., Samuel-Hodge, C., Lux, L., Webb, L., Sutton, S.F., Swinson, T., Jackman, L. & Whitener, L. (2004). Community-based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence (Vol. AHRQ Publication No. 04–E022-2). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

McDonald, M., Townsend, A., Cox, S.M., Paterson, N.D. & Lafrenière, D. (2008). Trust in health research relationships: accounts of human subjects. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 3 (4) 35-47.

Evans, A.M. & Krueger, J.I. (2011). Elements of trust: Risk and perspective-taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47 (1) 171-177.

Molm, L.D., Takahashi, N. & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and Trust in Social Exchange: An Experimental Test of a Classical Proposition. American Journal of Sociology 105 (5) 1396.

Mikesell, L., Bromley, E. & Khodyakov, D. (2013). Ethical community-engaged research: A literature review. American Journal of Public Health 100 (12) e7-e14.

Bromley, E., Mikesell, L., Jones, F. & Khodyakov, D. (2015). From Subject to Participant: Ethics and the Evolving Role of Community in Health Research. American Journal of Public Health 105 (5) 900-908.

Khodyakov, D., Mikesell, L., Schraiber, R., Booth, M. & Bromley, E. (2016). On using ethical principles of community-engaged research in translational science. Translational Research 171, 52-62.

Eyal, N. (2012). Using informed consent to save trust. Journal of Medical Ethics 40, 437-444.

Rogers, W. & Ballantyne, A. (2008). Gender and trust in medicine: Vulnerabilities, abuses, and remedies. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (1) 48-66.

Corbie‐Smith, G., Thomas, S.B., Williams, M.V. & Moody‐Ayers, S. (1999). Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14 (9) 537-546.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91 (3) 481-510.

Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1) 35-67.



  • There are currently no refbacks.