Researchers need to manage expectations and be realistic about what CBA can achieve. While contending with the possibility that CBA can effect harmful change, we also must address the risk of ineffectuality. There are multiple barriers to adaptation that limit what can be achieved locally, and many of the purported benefits of CBA—e.g., capacity building and empowerment—may appear tokenistic to communities facing many pressing issues. Given the history of research in the North, deficits between what projects promise and what transpires can further erode trust in research. Being transparent with communities about expectations is thus essential for CBA work, and needs to begin with researchers and partners recognizing that CBA is not a ‘silver bullet,’ with work unlikely to overcome many of barriers to adaptation in the short term. Framing and communicating research‐funded/‐driven community adaptation initiatives as ‘pilot projects’ is one way to help moderate expectations; highlighting the importance of projects as first steps for increasing the political salience of adaptation and communicating local needs to higher levels is also important. Careful selection of methods, such as incorporating process‐based evaluation techniques in addition to outcomes‐oriented evaluation, may also help make legible the short‐term results or progress of CBA programs.