Trust, Transparency, and Power Dynamics in Community-Led Research
On March 27, 2026, Dr. Akm Alamgir, Access Alliance Director of Knowledge and Learning, presented Navigating the Ethics of Displacement: Trust, Transparency, and Power Dynamics in Community-Led Research at the McMaster University conference – Navigating Research Ethics with Scholars at Risk. The conference was organized at the Centre for Global Peace, Justice & Health at McMaster University, Canada in collaboration with the Universities of Sanctuary, The Scholars AT Risk (Canada Chapter), and the UnborderED Knowledge initiative. In this article, you will find his complete remarks along with presentation slides.
Abstract
Research involving displaced populations is frequently characterized by a profound power imbalance, systemic distrust, and ethical dilemmas that challenge the integrity of the knowledge produced. This paper examines the complex interplay between researcher credibility and participant vulnerability in displaced communities. It explores how political polarization and precarious legal statuses create barriers to authentic expression and data transparency. By analyzing the psychological coping mechanisms of displaced subjects and the institutional marginalization of community scholars, this paper argues for a systemic shift toward the Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) model and ensuring a sanctuary island for the displaced scholars to bridge the gap between traditional academia and community-based research for their barrier-free transitions to continue as a resource in the host country.
Introduction
The global landscape of forced migration has necessitated a surge in research to understand the needs and experiences of displaced persons. However, the methodology and ethics of such research are often fraught with tension. Displaced scholars and participants alike must navigate a landscape where intellectual integrity is frequently compromised by political polarization and the existential threat of deportation or social deprivation.
At the heart of this issue is the “crisis of trust.” For the displaced, sharing information is not merely an academic exercise but a high-stakes risk. For the community researcher—those conducting studies from within their own displaced populations—the challenge is twofold: they must manage the trauma of their peers while simultaneously fighting for legitimacy within an academic system that views them with skepticism.
For scholars operating in or fleeing from zones of conflict and political instability, the path to academic continuity is often obstructed by a compounding set of temporal and structural barriers. Temporally, these researchers frequently face significant “career gaps” (temporal barrier) caused by forced displacement, prolonged periods of hiding, or the slow-moving bureaucracy of international visa and asylum processes (structural barrier). These interruptions are not merely neutral pauses; in the fast-paced world of modern academia, a multi-year hiatus can lead to the perceived obsolescence of technical skills or the cooling of professional networks. This “limbo” period often forces scholars to prioritize immediate survival over high-level research, creating a permanent lag in their publication records that can be difficult to justify to traditional hiring committees who prioritize continuous productivity.
Structurally, the obstacles are embedded within the rigid institutional frameworks of host-country universities. Many scholars at risk encounter the “credential trap,” in which their hard-earned degrees or professorial titles from home institutions are unrecognized or undervalued due to a lack of formal equivalency agreements. Language barriers and unfamiliarity with specific Western grant-writing cultures further marginalize their expertise. Furthermore, even when temporary fellowships are secured, these positions are often precarious and short-term, failing to provide the long-term tenure-track stability required for deep, longitudinal research. Without intentional structural interventions—such as dedicated bridging programs and holistic tenure evaluations—the global academic community risks permanently losing the unique perspectives of those who have risked the most for their intellectual freedom.
The Participant Perspective: Vulnerability and Coping Mechanisms
For participants with precarious immigration status, the researcher is often viewed as a gatekeeper or a potential threat rather than a neutral seeker of knowledge. The fear of identification leads to a “silencing effect,” in which informants withhold opinions to avoid repercussions from both host governments and political factions in their home countries.
When participants do engage, they often do so under extreme psychological duress. The summary document highlights a spectrum of “adaptive restraint behaviours.” Initially, displaced individuals demonstrate remarkable resilience, offering innovative solutions and maintaining hope. However, when the burden of displacement is compounded by the intrusive nature of extractive research, these coping mechanisms can fail.
The transition from “repressive defensiveness” to overt psychological distress—manifesting in attention problems, aggression, or self-harm—underscores the ethical responsibility of the researcher. If the research process does not offer tangible benefits to the community, it risks becoming another layer of exploitation that triggers juvenile delinquency and deep-seated frustration.
A culture of a Sanctuary Ecosystem
In Canada, the culture of ‘Sanctuary’ represents a growing ecosystem of institutional support designed to integrate displaced academics and students into the domestic post-secondary landscape. This network is anchored by ‘Universities of Sanctuary’ initiatives—such as those at the University of Ottawa, Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU), and York University—which provide dedicated pathways for individuals with precarious immigration status. By offering domestic tuition rates, academic bridging programs, and “sanctuary scholarships,” these institutions move beyond temporary refuge toward sustainable inclusion. These programs are often integrated with the Scholars at Risk (SAR) Canada Section, a coalition of over 30 universities that coordinate life-saving academic placements and long-term professional mentorship to ensure that intellectual contributions are not lost to conflict or censorship.
Complementing these structural pathways are robust social and advocacy campaigns that mobilize the broader academic community and the Canadian public. Campaigns like #Free2Think and the Scholars in Prison Project raise international awareness of specific academics facing detention, such as Dr. Ahmadreza Djalali, while national events like the ‘Safe Havens’ conferences foster dialogue on universities’ role as defenders of human rights. In Toronto and across Ontario, these campaigns are increasingly data-driven and collaborative, involving student-led advocacy seminars and fundraising drives that provide essential ‘wrap-around’ support—including legal aid, mental health resources, and language training. Through this dual approach of institutional ‘sanctuary’ and public advocacy, Canada has positioned itself as a global leader in protecting the right to free inquiry and supporting the professional dignity of at-risk intellectuals.
The Researcher’s Dilemma: Credibility and Institutional Barriers
The power dynamic is further complicated when the researcher is a “community scholar”—a displaced intellectual not formally affiliated with a university. These scholars face a “credibility gap” enforced by Western institutional standards.
- The Ethics Approval Hurdle: Most University Research Ethics Boards (REBs) are designed for traditional institutional frameworks. Community scholars find it nearly impossible to obtain the necessary clearances to conduct “legitimate” research, as they lack the institutional “socket” to plug into.
- The Transparency Paradox: Because they are rarely funded, community scholars are often forced to operate on the fringes. This lack of resources leads traditional academia to view their data as less robust or their processes as less transparent.
- The Intellectual Burden: Community researchers face an “insider-outsider” dilemma. They must decide whether to engage as a peer—providing emotional support and advocacy—or to maintain “academic distance” to satisfy traditional standards of objectivity. This struggle often leads to the researcher feeling disempowered to interpret the very benefits their community needs.
Power Dynamics and Systemic Intervention
The current “optics” of research on displacement often prioritizes the needs of the funding institution over the community. To rectify this, a systemic intervention is required that moves away from a “deficit-based” model—which views displaced people only as victims or data points—toward a model that recognizes their agency (an “Asset-based model”).
The ABCD (Asset-Based Community Development) model serves as a vital bridge in this context. By focusing on the strengths, skills, and existing social capital within displaced communities, the ABCD model re-centers the power. Instead of academic researchers “extracting” data, the process becomes a collaborative effort where the community scholar is a lead partner, not a field assistant.
Bridging the gap between academic and community-based research requires:
- Institutional Flexibility: Universities must create pathways for unaffiliated community scholars to access ethics reviews and funding.
- Reciprocal Benefits: Research must yield tangible, immediate benefits for the participants to alleviate the sense of deprivation.
- Safety Protocols: Moving beyond standard ‘anonymity’ to deep-layer confidentiality that accounts for the specific political risks faced by displaced populations.
Conclusion
Research with or by displaced scholars is not a neutral act; it is a political one. The precariousness of immigration status and the marginalization of community scholars create a landscape where trust is a scarce commodity. However, by acknowledging the sophisticated coping mechanisms of the displaced and dismantling the institutional barriers that delegitimize community-based intellectuals, the academic community can move toward a more ethical and transparent practice. Institutional flexibility, reciprocal benefits, and safety protocols are the key interventions to mitigate the transparency paradox. The integration of the ABCD model is not just a methodological choice, but a necessary step toward restoring the dignity and agency of those living in displacement.
References
- Arteaga, M. C., Workentin, M., Abeshu, G., Anene, I. and Alamgir, Akm. (2022). Role and Level of Engagement of Peer Researchers in Systematic Reviews: A Review Article. Advances in Research; 23 (5):6-17. https://doi.org/10.9734/air/2022/v23i530345.
- Alamgir, Akm., Roy, P., and Taverna, F. (2024). Levels of Engagement of South Asian Participants in Health Research: Effectiveness of Community-Based Research (CBR) Framework. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 30(9):880-97. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2024/v30i92415.
Presentation slides