Abstract
This paper shares my reflections on the research ethics review process, from the point of view of both a qualitative researcher and a member of an institutional research ethics review board. By considering research ethics review, first as practice, then as policy, as a relationship and, finally, as a performance, I attempt to outline a new vision of research ethics, one that engages seriously with the relationship between receiving ethics approval, and conducting ethical research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Upon receipt of ethics approval by the University, any research that is to be conducted in schools needs to undergo a review process by the district school board. In our case, this process took nearly another 6 months to be completed.
It should be noted that Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) regarding ethical conduct for research involving humans is not a set of regulations but, rather, a set of guiding principles.
As opposed to a productive tension that opens up new epistemological, methodological, etc. possibilities.
draft2e@pre.ethics.gc.ca. The first round for public feedback ended on June 30, 2009. The second round opened in October 2009, and closed in December of that year.
Note that I will use the terms “free and informed consent” and “informed consent” interchangeably.
University of Toronto’s ethics review form states explicitly that written consent may not be appropriate or required, and gives researchers the opportunity either to explain why this may be the case for their project, or to describe the form of consent that is appropriate for their project.
References
Amit, V. (2000). The university as panopticon: Moral claims and attacks on academic freedom. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy (pp. 215–235). London: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (2005). Education, markets, and audit culture. Critical Quarterly, 47(1, 2), 395–414.
Brown, S. (2007). Use of research-ethics boards is growing in Africa, study finds. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, A13. Available online at http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i22/22a01301.htm. Accessed November 2007.
Canadian Association of University Teachers. (1997). CAUT responds to Tri-Council Code. Available online at http://www.caut.ca/en/bulletin/issues/1997_oct/tricouncil.htm. Accessed October 2007.
Cannella, G. S. (2004). Regulatory power: can a feminist poststructuralist engage in research oversight? Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 235–245.
Fine, M., Tuck, E., & Zeller-Berkman, S. (2009). Do you believe in Geneva? Methods and ethics at the global/local nexus. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous knowledges (pp. 157–180). Los Angeles: Sage.
Gildersleeve, R. E. (2010). Dangerously important moment(s) in reflexive research practices with immigrant youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(4), 407–421.
Guta, A., Wilson, M. G., Flicker, S., Travers, R., Mason, C., Wenyeve, G., et al. (2010). Are we asking the right questions? A review of Canadian REB practices in relation to community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(2), 35–46.
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.
Halse, C., & Honey, A. (2005). Unraveling ethics: illuminating the moral dilemmas of research ethics. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4), 2141–2162.
Knight, M. G., Bentley, C. C., Norton, N. E. L., & Dixon, I. R. (2004). (De)constructing (in)visible parent/guardian consent forms: negotiating power, reflexivity, and the collective within qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(3), 390–411.
Lewis, M. (2008). New strategies of control: academic freedom and research ethics boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(5), 684–699.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Tierney, W. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 219–234.
Nathan, R. (2005). An anthropologist goes under cover. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, B11. Available online at http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=/weekly/v51/i47/47b01101.htm. Accessed November 2007.
Nicholson, H. (2002). The politics of trust: drama education and the ethic of care. Research in Drama Education, 7(1), 81–91.
O’Connell Davidson, J. (2008). If no means no, does yes mean yes? Consenting to research intimacies. History of the Human Sciences, 21(4), 49–67.
PRE (Interagency Panel on Research Ethics). (1998). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. Available online at http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/archives/tcps-eptc/Default/. Accessed February 2011.
PRE (Interagency Panel on Research Ethics). (2008). Draft 2nd edition of the Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. Available online at www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policypolitique/initiatives/draft-preliminaire. Accessed June 2009.
PRE (Interagency Panel on Research Ethics). (2010a). 2nd edition of Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. Available online at http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/. Accessed December 2010.
PRE (Interagency Panel on Research Ethics). (2010b). TCPS 2—Chapter 3. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. Available online at http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/chapter3-chapitre3/. Accessed February 2011.
Rallis, S. F. (2010). “That is NOT what’s happening at Horizon!”: ethics and misrepresenting knowledge in text. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(4), 435–448.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2010). Everyday ethics: Reflections on practice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(4), 379–391.
Shea, C. (2000). Don’t talk to the humans: the crackdown on social science research. Lingua Franca, 10(6), 27–34.
Stutchbury, K., & Fox, A. (2009). Ethics in educational research: introducing a methodological tool for effective ethical analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(4), 489–504.
Tilley, S., & Gormley, L. (2007). Canadian university ethics review. Cultural complications: translating principles into practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 368–387.
Tronto, J. (1989). Women and caring: What can feminists learn about morality from caring? In A. Jaggar & S. Bordo (Eds.), Gender/body knowledge: Feminist reconstruction on being and knowing (pp. 172–187). London, UK: Rutgers University Press.
Wong, L. M. (1998). The ethics of rapport: institutional safeguards, resistance, and betrayal. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 178–199.
Acknowledgements
Previous versions of this paper were presented in 2008 at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, and in 2009 at the Gender and Education Association’s bi-annual conference. I would like to thank my copresenters and the audience members for their interest and constructive feedback.
I would also like to thank Dean Sharpe at the University of Toronto’s Office of Research Ethics for sharing his professional insight and perspectives with me. His comments on an early draft of this article were invaluable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rivière, D. Looking from the Outside/In: Re-thinking Research Ethics Review. J Acad Ethics 9, 193–204 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-9139-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-9139-y