Abstract
What can one expect to unfold when they choose to do a face-to-face study of children on the farm and their use of space in rural southwestern Ontario? The process of getting the research off the ground from an ethics point of view was one where it was anything but normative, and to a large extent, a grueling process. This article situates the researcher’s dilemma and lays out the unfolding of the research process with reference to the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans and the major components found to trouble a research ethics board on a university campus. Last, academic freedom and the rights of researchers are considered in the context of undertaking the proposed research agenda.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The TCPS recommends a five-person REB with two members with expertise in research methods, one with expertise in ethics, one with expertise in law if the research is in the area of biomedicine, and one with no university affiliation.
Eight principles guide the policy. They are respect for human dignity, free and informed consent, respect for vulnerable persons, respect for privacy and confidentiality, respect for justice and inclusiveness, the balance of harms and benefits, minimizing harm, and maximizing benefits (MRC et al., 1998: i.5–i.6).
It should be pointed out that researchers cannot maintain absolute confidentiality at all times. That is, when issues of child sexual abuse are raised by a child, researchers, like other professionals (medical practitioners etc.) must report this information to appropriate authorities (France et al., 2000: 160).
In my own case, the title of the research, “What About the Children at the Farm Gate?” might have to be revised. The revision of the title resulting from the experience with the REB might rather be, “How to Get the Researcher Behind the Farm Gate when an REB Acts as Gatekeeper to Ethical Standards.”
References
Alcock, P. (1996). Social Policy in Britain: Themes and Issues. London: Macmillan.
Baker, P. (1998). Hearing and writing women’s voices, Resources for Feminist Research 26(1/2), 31–53.
Bernstein, B. and Brannen, J. (Eds.) (1996). Children, Research and Policy, London: Taylor & Francis.
Cummins, H. (1996). Ties That Bind Farm Men and Women to the Land. PhD Dissertation, University of Waterloo, Department of Sociology.
Cummins, H., McDaniel, S. A. and Beauchamp, R. S. (1988). Women inventors in Canada in the 1980s, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 25(3), 389–405.
Cummins, H., McDaniel, S. A., and Beauchamp, R. S. (1990). Becoming inventors: Women who aspire to invent, Atlantis 15(2):90–93.
France, A., Bendelow, G., and Williams, S. (2000). A ‘risky’ business: Researching the health beliefs of children and young people, In A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children’s Perspectives, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, pp. 150–162.
Gidarakou, I. (1999). Young women’s attitudes towards agriculture and women’s new roles in the Greek countryside: A first approach, Journal of Rural Studies 15(2), 147–158.
Graue, M. E. and Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying Children in Context: Theories, Methods and Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greig, A. and Taylor, J. (1999). Doing Research with Children. London: Sage.
Heald, S. (2001). Women’s studies, who is she? The discipline according to SSHRC, Atlantis 25(2), 87–91.
Hendrick, H. (2000). The child as social actor in historical sources: Problems of identification and interpretation, In P. Christensen and A. James (Eds.), Research with Children, London: Falmer, pp. 36–61.
Holloway, S. L. and Valentine, G. (2000). Children’s Geographies and the New Social Studies of Childhood, In S. L. Holloway and G. Valentine (Eds.), Children’s Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning, London: Routledge, pp. 1–26.
James, S. (1990). Is there a ‘place’ for children in geography, Area 22, 378–383.
Katz, C. (1994). Playing the field: Questions of fieldwork in geography, Professional Geographer 46(1), 67–80.
Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching Children’s Perspectives, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives: Ethical issues, In A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children’s Perspectives, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, pp. 1–20.
Macintyre, M. (1993). Fictive kinship or mistaken identity? Fieldwork on Tubetube Island, Papua New Guinea, In D. Bell, P. Caplan, and W. J. Karim (Eds.), Gender Fields: Women, Men and Ethnography, London: Routledge, pp. 44–62.
Matthews, H., Limb, M. and Taylor, M. (1998). The geography of children: Some ethical and methodological considerations for project and dissertation work, Journal of Geography on Higher Education 22(3), 311–324.
Matthews, H., Taylor, M., Sherwood, K., Tucker, F. and Limb, M. (2000). Growing-up in the countryside: Children and the rural Idyll, Journal of Rural Studies 16, 141–153.
Mayall, B. (Ed.) (1994). Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced. London: Falmer.
McDaniel, S., Cummins, H. A., and Beauchamp, R. S. (1988). Mothers of invention? Meshing the roles of inventor, mother and worker, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 25(3), 389–405.
Minutes of the Research Ethics Board (November 2, 1999). Brescia College, The University of Western Ontario. London, Ontario.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social Research Methods – Qualitative and Quantitative (4th edn.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Newman, P. R. and Newman, B. M. (1997). Childhood and Adolescence. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
MRC (Medical Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada) et al. (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans, ON: Ottawa.
Pratt, B. and Loizos, P. (1992). Choosing Research Methods: Data Collection for Development Workers. Oxford: Oxfam.
Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G. B., and Wintersberger, H. (Eds.) (1994). Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics. Aldershot: Avebury.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research, New York: Oxford University Press.
Scheyvens, R. and Leslie, H. (2000). Gender, ethics and empowerment: Dilemmas of development fieldwork, Women’s Studies International Forum 23(1), 119–130.
Sieber, J. E. (1992). Planning Ethically Responsible Research – A Guide for Students and Internal Review Boards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spender, D. (1985). For the Record: The Meaning and Making of Feminist Research. London: Women’s.
Stanley, L. (1983). Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
The University of Western Ontario Review Board for Health Sciences Research Involving Human Subjects Draft Guidelines (1996). London, Ontario.
Valentine, G. (1997). A safe place to grow up? Parenting, perceptions of children’s safety and the rural Idyll, Journal of Rural Studies 13(2), 137–148.
Valentine, G. (2000). Exploring children and young people's narratives of identity, Geoforum 31, 257–267.
van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2001). Is research-ethics a moral panic? Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 38(1), 19–36.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cummins, H.A. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Ethics Board: Studying the Meaning of Farm Life for Farm Children. J Acad Ethics 4, 175–188 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-006-9015-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-006-9015-3