NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Back to results
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1356636
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2022-Dec
Pages: 19
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-1570-1727
EISSN: EISSN-1572-8544
Beyond Criticism of Ethics Review Boards: Strategies for Engaging Research Communities and Enhancing Ethical Review Processes
Hickey, Andrew; Davis, Samantha; Farmer, Will; Dawidowicz, Julianna; Moloney, Clint; Lamont-Mills, Andrea; Carniel, Jess; Pillay, Yosheen; Akenson, David; Brömdal, Annette; Gehrmann, Richard; Mills, Dean; Kolbe-Alexander, Tracy; Machin, Tanya; Reich, Suzanne; Southey, Kim; Crowley-Cyr, Lynda; Watanabe, Taiji; Davenport, Josh; Hirani, Rohit; King, Helena; Perera, Roshini; Williams, Lucy; Timmins, Kurt; Thompson, Michael; Eacersall, Douglas; Maxwell, Jacinta
Journal of Academic Ethics, v20 n4 p549-567 Dec 2022
A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes used to determine the ethical merit of research. Citing criticism on the bureaucratic nature of ethics review processes, this literature provides a useful provocation for (re)considering how the ethics review might be enacted. Much of this criticism focuses on how ethics review boards "deliberate," with particular attention given to the lack of transparency and opportunities for researcher recourse that characterise ethics review processes. Centered specifically on the conduct of ethics review boards convened within university settings, this paper draws on these inherent criticisms to consider the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative and deliberative practices. Outlining a set of principles against which ethics review boards might establish strategies for engaging with researchers and research communities, this paper draws attention to how "Deliberative communication," "Engagement with researchers" and the "Distribution of responsibility" for the ethics review might be enacted in the day-to-day practice of the university human ethics review board. This paper develops these themes via a conceptual lens derived from Habermas' (The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society, 1984) articulation of 'communicative action' and Fraser's (Social Text, 25(26), 56-80, 1990) consideration of 'strong publics' to cast consideration of the role that human ethics review boards might play in supporting university research cultures. "Deliberative communication," "Engagement with researchers" and the "Distribution of responsibility" provide useful conceptual prompts for considering how ethics review boards might undertake their work.
BioMed Central, Ltd. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2129/gp/biomedical-sciences
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education; Postsecondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A