In pursuing CBA approaches, researchers need to scrutinize carefully the context in which they are working, and be cognizant of the challenges and benefits CBA brings. There is no ‘one size fits all’ guideline of how to do CBA effectively, but there are a number of responsibilities for those engaged in CBA work: Researchers should not assume that research has a positive role to play in community adaptation just because it utilizes participatory approaches. CBA can assist communities, build capacity, develop locally appropriate adaptations based on indigenous and Western knowledge, expand the salience of planning for future risks, and direct attention to locally important issues. Yet, participation in and of itself does not necessarily denote good or ethically sound CBA. In fact, participation in CBA research can perpetuate the privilege of Western knowledge over local values and indigenous knowledge, and can further marginalize communities if power relations are not addressed (also see Refs 28, 33, 84). CBA also does not prevent maladaptation (see Table 1), and in conducting research that facilitates or legitimizes intervention, researchers must address the potential that their work can do harm, especially when constrained by a lack information to make robust decisions in light of dynamic climate/ecological conditions. These potential dangers require careful consideration before projects proceed. 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. Researchers should premise their work on an understanding that in CBA, how knowledge is generated is as important as the research outcomes. Researchers need to be cognizant of key principles of CBA, including codeveloping projects with communities who are engaged as partners, utilizing locally appropriate and approved theories and methodologies that respect the history, culture, values, and wishes of a community, while recognizing that each community is different in terms of their expectations and needs. Researchers working in indigenous communities also need to understand the colonial history and culture in which they work, and consider the underlying power dynamics shaping collaborations. Personal relationships and reciprocity underpin these principles,72, 82, 115 yet projects may fail or encounter substantial challenges even if these principles are adhered to; this is the very nature of CBA. Such challenges and failures should not be sanitized when work is presented but fully reported on. Accurately describing methodological processes and actions undertaken to secure community acceptance and support is essential for broader learning by the CBA community. Moreover, although ethical social science research always requires community consent, researchers should not necessarily be dissuaded from topics that do not imply or require a high degree of participation, or from initiating research ideas that may be of merit but fall outside immediate community priorities (such as maintaining a climate change focus, including future orientation). Researchers must be flexible and open to change, acknowledging that community needs and perspectives may evolve as the project advances. Flexibility implies the need for constant reflective attention, a consideration noted in decolonizing methodologies in general.116, 117 For example, theories and methods guiding projects considered participatory by researchers, may be viewed quite differently by communities as the work evolves, and may reinforce existing power differentials. Flexibility needs to also be balanced, however, within the context of the adaptation focus of CBA projects and skills of the researchers involved. Depending on the project and community interest, this may involve linking adaptation to more immediate socioeconomic concerns that also act as determinants of vulnerability to climate change (e.g., Ref 50), or more explicitly trying to bring in an adaptation lens. Relationships and reciprocity are essential for building the trust in community‐based projects necessary for successful engagement. The importance of developing long‐term relationships is essential for CBA, along with the need for regular interaction with communities and emphasis on the sharing and discussion of results. For students engaged in relatively short‐term projects, the ability to contribute to existing or ongoing projects through larger team‐based and collaborative projects is important for maintaining long‐term commitments, and to avoid short‐term ‘parachuting in’ of researchers. Relationship building does not necessarily require researchers to spend extended time in communities, although depending on the situation it can be helpful, and needs to be assessed on a case‐by‐case basis. Because a key component of CBA involves communities leading and partaking in the research process, continuous research presence could undermine this. The ability of researchers to ‘let go’ of successful projects and give space for communities to establish ownership over them is also important. Researchers should work to better coordinate and plan CBA research in advance to avoid duplication and build on existing work. There are often divergent perspectives between and among researchers and communities about the aims, objectives, and outcomes of CBA. Promoting transparency and accountability, supporting communities to help identify and characterize the potential benefits and tensions the work may bring, and flexibility and openness in design and approach are essential for projects to evolve positively and productively. The use of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) or partnership agreements have been advocated by some indigenous organizations and researchers in this context to minimize the potential for future conflict by formalizing expectations, decision‐making processes, and responsibilities among partners.87, 118 Equally, some communities view such formalized agreements as unnecessary or find formalization of arrangements inconsistent with local values for relational and reciprocal ethics. CBA research requires advance planning and better coordination. Another significant challenge faced by CBA researchers is that of effective coordination before and during projects, with communities often indicating that they are not ‘research‐fatigued’ but ‘researcher fatigued,’ pointing to a lack of coherence among research projects in the same location. As CBA research involves significant community engagement, duplication of the data collection and engagement processes across multiple projects can cause loss of interest and weariness among community members; equally, extensive engagement in developing projects that do not get funded can result in significant frustration and limit interest in future projects, especially given other pressing needs in communities. Addressing this requires specific communication and planning between researchers engaged in CBA‐work in the North. Researchers should actively seek‐out those working in communities they plan to also work in, noting the importance of on online databases of research activity that facilitate understanding of who is doing what (e.g., through websites such as that maintained by Nunavut Climate Change Centre), along with targeted literature reviews and gap analyses.119