Getting Beyond Form Filling: The Role of Institutional Governance in Human Research Ethics

Abstract

It has become almost a truism to describe the interaction between research ethics committees and researchers as being marred by distrust and conflict. The ethical conduct of researchers is increasingly a matter of institutional concern because of the degree to which non-compliance with national standards can expose the entire institution to risk. This has transformed research ethics into what some have described as a research ethics industry. In an operational sense, there is considerable focus on modifying research behaviour through a combination of education and sanctions. The assessment of whether a researcher is 'ethical' is too often based on whether they submit their work for review by an ethics committee. However, is such an approach making a useful contribution to the actual ethical conduct of research and the protection of the interests of participants? Does a focus on ethical review minimise institutional risk? Instead it has been suggested that ethics committees may be distorting or frustrating useful research and are promoting a culture of either mindless rule following or frustrated resistance. An alternative governance approach is required. There is a need for a strong institutional focus on promoting and supporting the reflective practice of researchers through every stage of their work. By situating research ethics within the broader framework of institutional governance, this paper suggests it is possible to establish arrangements that actually facilitate excellent and ethical research.

Things may not be as expected: surprising findings when updating work load at the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical).

“…Additionally, the 'back-andforth' research ethics review and decision process also imposes further work on already overburdened faculty postgraduate supervisors. [11] A conundrum often faced by our committee, when returning the 76% of applications for 'compliance problems' [3] has Serious revision = major revision + not approved Serious revision = major revision + not approved ARTICLE been described by Doyle et al [12] as follows: 'Should poorly completed applications with multiple grammatical and typing errors, providing vague and/or contradictory information about what appears to be nevertheless a completely innocuous project be approved on the basis that there are no ethical issues involved? Should they be rejected on the basis that the applicants have failed to engage properly with the process and have demonstrated a lack of respect for research ethics review?…”

“…Such pre-emptive forward planning recognises that the facilitation of ethical conduct among researchers is an institutional governance issue which should best be imbedded within the institution's broader governance framework. [3] In addition, transparent, visible preparedness goes a long way to improving the relationship between researchers and ethics committees.…”

Research Ethics in a Business School Context: The Establishment of a Review Committee and the Primary Issues of Concern

“…While it is acknowledged in the literature that the interaction between research ethics committees and researchers is often marred by distrust and conflict (Allen 2008), the accommodating approach taken by the KBS committee since its establishment in 2006 has served to largely dissipate the resistance of the KBS faculty to the research ethics process. The majority of the faculty in the business school are at least tolerant of the process with many individuals now actively supportive of it.…”

Research Ethics Board (REB) Members’ Preparation for, and Perceived Knowledge of Research Ethics

“…This concern is further exacerbated if ethical guidelines are not read in the first instance. Without conformity to guidelines, the process of obtaining research ethics may be more an act of compliance to a template and institutional norms, than a process involving considered compliance with standards by ethical governance organizations (Allen 2008;Jennings 2010). The issue of meeting a standard may help to account for the fact that the majority of research ethics applications appear to be written by research students and research assistants instead of principal investigators (Lindorff 2010;Tilley 2008).…”