Reporting Ethics Committee Approval in Public Administration Research
- 495 Downloads
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.
KeywordsPublic administration Ethics approval Ethics reporting Research ethics
- 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
- CONSORT Group (2012). CONSORT: Transparent reporting of trials. http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed 7 June 2012.
- Economic and Social Research Council (2010). Framework for research ethics (FRE). In ESRC (Ed.). Swindon, UK: Research Councils UK.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gill, J. (1999). The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing. Political Research Quarterly, 52(3), 647–674.Google Scholar
- Gunnell, J. G. (1993). The descent of political theory: The genealogy of an American vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Heise, L., Moore, K., & Toubia, N. (1996). Defining “coercion” and “consent” cross-culturally. SIECUS report, 24(2), 12–14.Google Scholar
- Jordan, S. R. (2013). Systematic evaluation of informational risk in research. University of Hong Kong, Department of Politics and Public Administration.Google Scholar
- 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/.
- 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
- Jordan, S. R., & Hill, K. Q. (2012b). Ethical assurance statements in political science journals. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(3), 243–250.Google Scholar
- King, G. (1995). Replication, replication. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(3), 444–452.Google Scholar
- King, G. (2006). Publication, Publication. PS: Political Science and Politics, 39(1), 119–125.Google Scholar
- Law, M. (2005). Reduce, reuse, recycle: Issues in the secondary use of research data (pp. 5–10). Spring: IASSIST Quarterly.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Porter, T. (2008). Research ethics governance and political science in Canada. PS—Political Science and Politics, 41(3), 495–499.Google Scholar
- Reuters, T. (2012). Social sciences citation index. Web of Knowledge: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
- Schrag, Z. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- World Medical Assocation. (2000). The declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Scotland: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.