Autonomy and Compliance: How Qualitative Sociologists Respond to Institutional Ethical Oversight
- 387 Downloads
Prevailing sociological understandings of institutional ethical review tend to homogenize faculty responses to them, and are predominantly speculative. In this research, we conduct interviews with sociologists from 21 Ph.D.-granting departments across Canada, finding three predominant “ethics orientations” among them, with associated cognitive maps and strategic actions. In our analyses, we use these orientations to complicate homogeneous appraisals of social researchers’ responses to new bureaucratic requirements, enriching our understanding of how such requirements affect the ways sociologists think about their occupation, approach their research, and mentor successive generations. These ethics orientations suggest the field of sociology is comprised of distinct political cohorts with diverging understandings of ethical review, and by extension, power and intellectual work. For some, ethical review signals a more consultative and therefore better approach to knowledge production, while for others it marks the end of an era of unfettered (and superior) intellectual pursuit in sociology.
KeywordsEthical review Sociology Qualitative research Bureaucracy Strategy
This research was supported by a grant from SSHRC of Canada. We are grateful to the faculty members who participated in our study and hope this article is of interest and use to them. Thanks to Kari Dehli, Val Jenness, Susan Silbey, and Suzanne Staggenborg for comments and encouragement, and to the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology at Dalhousie University, especially Howard Ramos, for providing us with both a welcoming forum for presenting initial findings and thoughtful feedback. Our gratitude to Joanne Nowak for conducting and transcribing the French interviews. The paper is dedicated to Howard Becker, Mitch Duneier, and Harvey Molotch, the first author’s methods instructors.
- Barrett, R. J., & Parker, D. B. (2003). Rites of consent: Negotiating research participation in diverse cultures. Monash Bioethics Review, 22, 9–26.Google Scholar
- Bashi, V. (2004). Improving qualitative research proposal evaluation. In C. C. Ragin, J. Nagel, & P. White (Eds.), Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative research (pp. 39–43). National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
- Bledsoe, C. H., Sherin, B., Galinsky, A. G., Headley, N. M., Heimer, C. A., Kjeldgaard, E., et al. (2007). Regulating creativity: Research and survival in the IRB iron cage. Northwestern University Law Review, 101, 593–641.Google Scholar
- Dehli, K. (2010). Efficiency meets ethics: Audit culture in graduate education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.Google Scholar
- Dehli, K., & Taylor, A. (2006). Toward new government of education research: Refashioning researchers as entrepreneurial and ethical subjects. In J. Ozga, T. Seddon, & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2006: Education research and policy: Steering the knowledge-based economy (pp. 105–118). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Hochschild, A. (2008). Discussant Comments. Presented at the Sex & Gender Section, Managed hearts and second shifts: Hochschild’s theorizing of the many worlds of work, Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Boston, MA (1–4 August).Google Scholar
- Jasper, J. (2006). Getting your way: Strategic dilemmas in the real world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Krause, E. (1996). Death of the guilds: Professions, states, and the advance of capitalism, 1930 to the present. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Matthews, N. (1995). Feminist clashes with the state: Tactical choices by state-funded rape crisis centers. In M. M. Ferree & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement (pp. 291–305). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- Rinehart, J. (2001). The tyranny of work: Alienation and the labour process. Toronto: Harcourt Canada.Google Scholar
- Rosenfield, S. (2008). Schemas, stressors, symptoms: The paradox of African American mental health. Talk presented in the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Silbey, S. S. (2003). Governing green laboratories: Differential responses to legal regulation. Unpublished paper, Department of Anthropology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
- Silbey, S. S., & Ewick, P. (2003). The architecture of authority: The place of law in the space of science. In A. Sarat, L. Douglas, & M. Umphrey (Eds.), The place of law (pp. 75–108). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Weingarten, H. P. (2006). Message from the president: U of C joins group of Canada’s most research-intensive universities. Calgary: University of Calgary. Retrieved October 20, 2009. (http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/departments/PRES/documents/2006-04-07-Message.pdf).