The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reciprocity: An ethic for community-based participatory action research
Abstract
Ethical issues have been of ongoing interest in discussions of community-based participatory action research (CBPAR). In this article we suggest that the notion of reciprocity — defined as an ongoing process of exchange with the aim of establishing and maintaining equality between parties — can provide a guide to the ethical practice of CBPAR. Through sharing our experiences with a CBPAR project focused on mental health services and supports in several cultural-linguistic immigrant communities in Ontario, Canada, we provide insights into our attempts at establishing reciprocal relationships with community members collaborating in the research study and discuss how these relationships contributed to ethical practice. We examine the successes and challenges with specific attention to issues of power and gain for the researched community. We begin with a discussion of the concept of reciprocity, followed by a description of how it was put into practice in our project, and, finally, conclude with suggestions for how an ethic of reciprocity might contribute to other CBPAR projects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology
Portes, A. (1998) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1 · Cited by 12,037 · cited 1×
“The recent health research literature in fact illustrates growing theoretical interest in reciprocity and trust as fundamental health promoting factors that are usually couched in terms of ‘social capital’ on the community level (Portes, 1998).”
Cited by
When 'Do No Harm' Is Not Enough: The Ethics of Research with Refugees and Other Vulnerable Groups
Hugman, R., Pittaway, E., & Bartolomei, L. (2011) · British Journal of Social Work · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr013 · Cited by 389
Litvin, S., Saunders, R., Maier, M. A., & Lüttke, S. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237220 · Cited by 177
“The skills taught in eQuoo are as follows: emotional bids [63], generalization [64], action bias [65], confirmation bias [65], catastrophizing [66], halo effect [67], reciprocity [68], expectancy effect [69], courtesy bias [70], and self-serving bias [71].”
BackgroundTembo, D., Hickey, G., Montenegro, C., Chandler, D., Nelson, E., Porter, K., Dikomitis, L., Chambers, M., Chimbari, M., Mumba, N., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n178 · Cited by 163
Barber, F. D. (2013) · Oncology Nursing Forum · doi:10.1188/13.onf.481-489 · Cited by 67
Colquhoun, A., Geary, J., & Goodman, K. J. (2013) · International Journal of Circumpolar Health · doi:10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21232 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N., & Wise, J.
- Venue
- Action Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 305-325
- ISSN
- 1476-7503 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-2617
- OpenAlex
- W2023640666
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reciprocity: An ethic for community-based participatory action research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1476750307083720
- The paper
- Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N., & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for community-based participatory action research. Action Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083720
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
