Getting through Ethics: The Fit between Research Ethics Board Assessments and Qualitative Research

Abstract

In this paper, we draw on the authors' collective experiences as qualitative researchers undergoing research ethics reviews. We highlight specific areas within our standard national guidelines that support qualitative research. Using case examples, we illustrate how diverse interpretations of these guidelines can be inconsistent and problematic for qualitative researchers. We outline recommendations for transparency, reciprocity, and streamlining of the review process. It is our hope that adoption of these recommendations will lead to a more collegial evaluative process, thereby contributing to the advancement of knowledge.

‘I Know it was Every Week, but I Can't be Sure if it was Every Day: Domestic Violence and Women with Learning Disabilities

“…The goal should surely be for researchers to embrace a genuine wish to have committees help them to conduct ethically rigorous research, rather than seeing ‘getting through ethics’ as an administrative hoop to be jumped through, as it often is (McCormack et al . ).…”

“…Such concerns, alongside the fact that different ethics committees adopt different ethical standards and that those granting or withholding ethical approval may have less specialist knowledge and experience than those wishing to conduct the research, mean that some reforms may need to take place if confidence in the ethical approval system is to persist. The goal should surely be for researchers to embrace a genuine wish to have committees help them to conduct ethically rigorous research, rather than seeing 'getting through ethics' as an administrative hoop to be jumped through, as it often is (McCormack et al 2012).…”

“Only Applies to Research Conducted in Sweden…”: Dilemmas in Gaining Ethics Approval in Transnational Qualitative Research

“…Judgment has to be exercised. This involves subjective estimations (Magelssen, Pedersen, & Førde, 2014;Randall & Fernandes, 1991;Tolich & Fitzgerald, 2006;van den Hoonaard, 2011;Willison et al, 2008) and can result in quite different decisions, even on the same project (McCormack et al, 2012). Within transnational ethics approvals contexts, different approval processes and understandings rub up against each other and can lead to different ethics approval requirements such as was the case for the first author's project involving research in Finland, Norway, and Sweden.…”

“…Such approval commonly has to be demonstrated to and endorsed by the research funders. But as we shall discuss below, such approval can also be very difficult to come by, partly for reasons sometimes discussed in the context of researchers' issues in dealing with research ethics boards (REBs) or institutional review boards (Guillemin, Gillam, Rosenthal, & Bolitho, 2012;Marshall, 2003;McCormack et al, 2012;Shore, Drew, Brazauskas, & Seifer, 2011), namely the mismatch between these boards' and the researchers' understanding of what the research involves, and partly because of the fact that ethics approval remains a largely national or local phenomenon in an increasingly internationalizing and globalizing research context.…”

Mobilising research ethics: Two examples from Aotearoa New Zealand

“…The mandatory nature of the new system of ethical committee consideration and the co‐mingling with funding regimes is concerning in light of ethical review boards tending to employ ‘anticipatory regulatory regimes’ (Murphy & Dingwall , p. 2224). The mismatch between biomedical and experimental psychology regulatory procedures and qualitative research has not been overlooked (Murphy & Dingwall ; Dyer & Demeritt ; McCormack et al ; Staller ; Tolich ). In contrast to biomedical models, qualitative research data collection is rarely conducted in researcher‐controlled environments.…”