How Talking Became Human Subjects Research: The Federal Regulation of the Social Sciences, 1965–1991

Schraǵ, Zachary M.

doi:10.1017/s0898030609090010

Cited by 32 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although no consensus has been reached over why such oversight came into existence, three dominant explanations have emerged. The most frequently cited account argues that ethical oversight emerged through historical contingency and the internal logic of bureaucracy rather than any real need to regulate the social sciences (Schrag 2009;Bledsoe et al 2007;Haggerty 2004;Fitzgerald 2004). Stark (2007), on the other hand, criticizes this approach as the "victim narrative," because it implies that ethical oversight resulted from some "terrible mistake" (p. 778).…”

Section: Debating Ethical Oversight: Normative Observations and Empirmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autonomy and Compliance: How Qualitative Sociologists Respond to Institutional Ethical Oversight

Taylor

Patterson

2010

Qual Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prevailing sociological understandings of institutional ethical review tend to homogenize faculty responses to them, and are predominantly speculative. In this research, we conduct interviews with sociologists from 21 Ph.D.-granting departments across Canada, finding three predominant "ethics orientations" among them, with associated cognitive maps and strategic actions. In our analyses, we use these orientations to complicate homogeneous appraisals of social researchers' responses to new bureaucratic requirements, enriching our understanding of how such requirements affect the ways sociologists think about their occupation, approach their research, and mentor successive generations. These ethics orientations suggest the field of sociology is comprised of distinct political cohorts with diverging understandings of ethical review, and by extension, power and intellectual work. For some, ethical review signals a more consultative and therefore better approach to knowledge production, while for others it marks the end of an era of unfettered (and superior) intellectual pursuit in sociology.

show abstract

Section: Debating Ethical Oversight: Normative Observations and Empirmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autonomy and Compliance: How Qualitative Sociologists Respond to Institutional Ethical Oversight

Taylor

Patterson

2010

Qual Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While my admittedly partial and anecdotal experiences in institutional ethics review do not match the more dramatic accounts from North America of research unnecessarily delayed or prevented, or of researchers abandoning research plans in dismay (Feeley 2007;Schrag 2009), it seems fair to conclude that this combination of factors has resulted in a sea change in UK institutional research regulation practices, and one which is far from complete. While 'e-social science' may currently be in the spotlight, due to the pressing need to establish the extent to which deployment of new technologies affects both legal compliance and conformity with established ethical principles, the underlying trends in empirical research regulation, such as the 'legalisation' of ethical review processes in response to perceived risks arising from information law, are of considerably wider reaching effect.…”

Section: Law Icts and The Future Of Ethical Reviewmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Haggerty 2004;Feeley 2007;Schrag 2009). Academics may chafe against the imposition of formal oversight processes (Taylor & Patterson 2010, p. 168), or even a requirement for ethics training (Smith-Doerr 2009), perceiving these as undue restrictions upon their autonomy to determine appropriate research strategies and methodologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data Protection, Freedom of Information and Ethical Review Committees

Charlesworth

2012

Information, Communication & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective interpretation of, and compliance with, data protection and freedom of information law across the range of administrative and educational activities undertaken in a UK higher educational institution are tasks which, over a decade after the passage of the legislation, remain fertile ground for disagreement, misunderstanding and poorly conceived institutional policymaking. For social science researchers, the issue is further complicated by the need to simultaneously interpret and implement research ethics guidelines promulgated by diverse external bodies: the Research Councils, subject-specific research associations and other cross-disciplinary special interest groups. The cascade of new information communication technologies (ICTs) available to the social science researcher completes a triangle of policy variables and uncertainties for both researchers and institutional research scrutiny bodies. The aim of this article is threefold: first, to examine some of the issues raised by the application of data protection and freedom of information law to research in the social sciences, with a particular eye to the impact of ICTs; second, to discuss how the interplay between legal rules, ethical guidelines, and institutional regulation is developing; and finally, to suggest some potential ways forward.

show abstract

“…For instance, risks of psychological harm may exist in situations where participants are asked to reflect on negative situations or poor health states, which could result in feelings of sadness or depression. Additionally, the risk of informational harm is greater when survey research collects identifiable information from participants, especially if that information could lead to downstream harms such as legal actions against an individual or group or social discrimination [9]. For example, as part of a survey research study, investigators might collect identifiable information about illegal drug use.…”

Section: Risks Of Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics Review of Survey Research: A Mandatory Requirement for Publication?

Whicher

2015

Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National regulations governing human subjects research differ with regard to whether they require survey research to be overseen by institutional ethics boards or committees. In cases where ethical review has been waived, or was provided by an individual or group other than an institutional ethics board, journals may question the appropriateness of the waiver or alternative review when making determinations about whether to accept the manuscript for publication. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance for journals to consider when making determinations about the necessity of ethical review for survey research projects. We review the functions of ethics oversight and consider the importance of those functions within the context of survey research. In survey research, no intervention is delivered to research participants. As a result, there is no risk of physical harm to individuals who participate. However, there can be a risk of informational or psychological harms. In situations where there is greater than minimal risk of informational or psychological harms, the survey research should have received institutional ethics oversight. Additionally, survey research projects that enroll vulnerable individuals with diminished autonomy should receive institutional ethics oversight. We hope that this article leads to further guidance on this subject by authoritative group such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

show abstract

How Talking Became Human Subjects Research: The Federal Regulation of the Social Sciences, 1965–1991

Cited by 32 publications

References 28 publications

Autonomy and Compliance: How Qualitative Sociologists Respond to Institutional Ethical Oversight

Autonomy and Compliance: How Qualitative Sociologists Respond to Institutional Ethical Oversight

Data Protection, Freedom of Information and Ethical Review Committees

Ethics Review of Survey Research: A Mandatory Requirement for Publication?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About