Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 77–97 | Cite as

Reporting Ethics Committee Approval in Public Administration Research

  • Sara R. JordanEmail author
  • Phillip W. Gray
Original Paper

Abstract

While public administration research is thriving because of increased attention to social scientific rigor, lingering problems of methods and ethics remain. This article investigates the reporting of ethics approval within public administration publications. Beginning with an overview of ethics requirements regarding research with human participants, I turn to an examination of human participants protections for public administration research. Next, I present the findings of my analysis of articles published in the top five public administration journals over the period from 2000 to 2012, noting the incidences of ethics approval reporting as well as funding reporting. In explicating the importance of ethics reporting for public administration research, as it relates to replication, reputation, and vulnerable populations, I conclude with recommendations for increasing ethics approval reporting in public administration research.

Keywords

Public administration Ethics approval Ethics reporting Research ethics 

References

  1. Amdur, R. J., & Biddle, C. (1997). Institutional review board approval and publication of human research results. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(11), 909–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, S. C., & Mortensen, P. B. (2010). Policy stability and organizational performance: Is there a relationship? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, M. T. (1992). Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public administration research. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauchner, H., & Sharfstein, J. (2001). Failure to report ethical approval in child health research: Review of published papers. British Medical Journal, 323(7308), 318–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beauchamp, T. L., Faden, R. R., Wallace, R. J., Jr, & Walters, L. R. (Eds.). (1982). Ethical issues in social science research. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Box, R. C. (1992). An examination of the debate over research in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brower, R. S., Abolafia, M. Y., & Carr, J. B. (2000). On improving qualitative methods in public administration research. Administration and Society, 32(4), 363–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brudney, J. L., Hebert, R. T., & Wright, D. S. (1999). Reinventing government in the American States: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review, 59(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brudney, J. L., & Wright, D. S. (2002). Revisiting administrative reform in the American States: The status of reinventing government during the 1990s. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calista, D. J. (2002). A critique of “reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform”. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caruson, K., & MacManus, S. A. (2011). Gauging disaster vulnerabilities at the local level: Divergence and convergence in an ‘all-hazards’ system. Administration and Society, 43(3), 346–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cleary, R. E. (1992). Revisiting the doctoral dissertation in public administration: An examination of the dissertations of 1990. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cleary, R. E. (2000). The public administration doctoral dissertation reexamined: An evaluation of the dissertations of 1998. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 446–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. CONSORT Group (2012). CONSORT: Transparent reporting of trials. http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed 7 June 2012.
  15. Denzin, N. K. (2008). IRBs and the turn to indigenous research ethics. In B. Jegatheesan (Ed.), Access, a zone of comprehension, and intrusion (Vol. 12, pp. 97–123). England: Emerald Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Economic and Social Research Council (2010). Framework for research ethics (FRE). In ESRC (Ed.). Swindon, UK: Research Councils UK.Google Scholar
  17. Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA—Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(20), 2701–2711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Enticott, G., Boyne, G.A., & Walker, R.M. (2009). The use of multiple informants in Public Administration Research: data aggregation using organizational echelons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 229–253.Google Scholar
  19. Gill, J. (1999). The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing. Political Research Quarterly, 52(3), 647–674.Google Scholar
  20. Gill, J., & Meier, K. J. (2000). Public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 157–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunnell, J. G. (1993). The descent of political theory: The genealogy of an American vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gunsalus, C. K. (2004). The Nanny state meets the inner lawyer: Overregulating while underprotecting human participants in research. Ethics and Behavior, 14(4), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunsalus, C. K., Bruner, E., Burbules, N. C., Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldber, J. P., et al. (2005). The illinois white paper: Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB ‘mission creep’. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 617–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(3), 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heise, L., Moore, K., & Toubia, N. (1996). Defining “coercion” and “consent” cross-culturally. SIECUS report, 24(2), 12–14.Google Scholar
  27. Hinds, P. S., Vogel, R. J., & Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of doing secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 408–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huston, P., & Moher, D. (1996). Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research. Lancet, 347(9007), 1024–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jordan, S. R. (2013). Systematic evaluation of informational risk in research. University of Hong Kong, Department of Politics and Public Administration.Google Scholar
  30. Jordan, S. R., & Gray, P. W. (2013). Flaking out: Should public administration researchers worry about challenges to NSF funding for political science research? PA times, retrieved at http://patimes.org/flaking-out-public-administration-researchers-worry-challenges-nsf-funding-political-science-research/.
  31. Jordan, S. R., & Hill, K. Q. (2012a). Editor’s perceptions of ethical and managerial issues in political science journals. PS: Political Science and Politics, 45(4), 724–727.Google Scholar
  32. Jordan, S. R., & Hill, K. Q. (2012b). Ethical assurance statements in political science journals. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(3), 243–250.Google Scholar
  33. King, G. (1995). Replication, replication. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(3), 444–452.Google Scholar
  34. King, G. (2006). Publication, Publication. PS: Political Science and Politics, 39(1), 119–125.Google Scholar
  35. Lan, Z., & Anders, K. K. (2000). A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research: An empirical test. Administration and Society, 32(2), 138–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Law, M. (2005). Reduce, reuse, recycle: Issues in the secondary use of research data (pp. 5–10). Spring: IASSIST Quarterly.Google Scholar
  37. Lazzarini, Z., Case, P., & Thomas, C. J. (2009). A walk in the park: A case study in research ethics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 37(1), 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, G., Benoit-Bryan, J., & Johnson, T. P. (2012). Survey research in public administration: Assessing mainstream journals with a total survey error framework. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levine, F. J., & Skedsvold, P. R. (2008). Where the rubber meets the road: Aligning IRBs and research practice. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41(3), 501–505.Google Scholar
  40. Matot, I., Pizov, R., & Sprung, C. L. (1998). Evaluation of institutional review board review and informed consent in publications of human research in critical care medicine. Critical Care Medicine, 26(9), 1596–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Middle, C., Johnson, A., Petty, T., Sims, L., & Macfarlane, A. (1995). Ethics approval for a national postal survey: Recent experience. British Medical Journal, 311(7006), 659–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Myles, P. S., & Tan, N. (2003). Reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading anesthesia journals. Anesthesiology, 99(5), 1209–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). The belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. In E. Department of Health, and Welfare (Ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  44. Office for Human Research Protections (2012). International compilation of human research standards. In U. D. o. H. a. H. Services (Ed.). Bethesda, MD: DHHS.Google Scholar
  45. Office of the Secretary (2011). Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking—human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay and ambiguity for investigators. In Department of Health and Human Services (Ed.): Code of Federal Regulations.Google Scholar
  46. Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., Ten Have, H. A. M. J., & Hoefnagels, W. H. L. (1996). Informed consent in biomedical studies on aging: Survey of four journals. British Medical Journal, 313(7065), 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olson, C. M., & Jobe, K. A. (1996). Reporting approval by research ethics committees and subjects’ consent in human resuscitation research. Resuscitation, 31(3), 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orlowski, J. P., & Christensen, J. A. (2002). The potentially coercive nature of some clinical research trial acronyms. Chest, 121(6), 2023–2028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Perry, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1986). Research methodology in the public administration review, 1975–1984. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Porter, T. (2008). Research ethics governance and political science in Canada. PS—Political Science and Politics, 41(3), 495–499.Google Scholar
  51. Rasmussen, L. M. (2008). Not all research is equal: Taking social science research into account. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(11), 17–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rennie, D. (1997). Disclosure to the reader of institutional review board approval and informed consent. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(11), 922–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reuters, T. (2012). Social sciences citation index. Web of Knowledge: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  54. Rid, A., Emanuel, E. J., & Wendler, D. (2010). Evaluating the risks of clinical research. JAMA—Journal of the American Medical Association, 304(13), 1472–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruiz-Canela, M., De Irala-Estevez, J., Martínez-González, M. Á., Gómez-Gracia, E., & Fernández-Crehuet, J. (2001). Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in clinical trials. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(3), 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Samarati, P. (2001). Protecting respondents’ identities in microdata release. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 13(6), 1010–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schrag, Z. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Seligson, M. A. (2008). Human subjects protection and large-N research: When exempt is non-exempt and research is non-research. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41(3), 477–482.Google Scholar
  59. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (2010). The ESRC’s 2010 Framework for research eth ics: Fit for research purpose? Sociological Research Online, 15(4), doi: 10.5153/sro.2265.
  60. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stiles, P. G., Boothroyd, R. A., Robst, J., & Ray, J. (2011). Ethically using administrative data in research: Medicaid administrators’ current practices and best practice recommendations. Administration and Society, 43(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sweeney, L. (2002). k-Anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 10(5), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor, H. R., & Fox, S. S. (2008). Ethical hurdles in indigenous research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32(5), 489–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tramèr, M. R., Reynolds, D. J. M., Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (1997). Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 635–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Den Hoonaard, W. C. (2008). Re-imagining the “subject”: Conceptual and ethical considerations on the participant in qualitative research. Ciencia e Saude Coletiva, 13(2), 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Welch, E., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). E-government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008). The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wjst, M. (2010). Caught you: Threats to confidentiality due to the public release of large-scale genetic data sets. BMC Medical Ethics, 11(1). doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-11-21.
  69. World Medical Assocation. (2000). The declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Scotland: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  70. Yang, K., & Kassekert, A. (2010). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction: Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yank, V., & Rennie, D. (1999). Disclosure of researcher contributions: A study of original research articles in the lancet. Annals of Internal Medicine, 130(8), 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yank, V., & Rennie, D. (2002). Reporting of informed consent and ethics committee approval in clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2835–2838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2008). Reforming institutional review board policy: Issues in implementation and field research. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41(3), 483–494.Google Scholar
  74. Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zinter, A. (2002). Harvard gene study in china is questioned. (30 March 2002). Los angeles times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/30/news/mn-35514.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and Public AdministrationThe University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong, HKSAR
  2. 2.Liberal Arts ProgramTexas A and M University at QatarDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations