In defence of governance: ethics review and social research

Abstract

There is a growing body of literature that has sought to undermine systems of ethical regulation, and governance more generally, within the social sciences. In this paper, we argue that any general claim for a system of research ethics governance in social research depends on clarifying the nature of the stake that society has in research. We show that certain accounts of this stake-protecting researchers' freedoms; ensuring accountability for resources; safeguarding welfare; and supporting democracy-raise relevant ethical considerations that are reasonably contested. However, these accounts cannot underpin a general claim in favour of, or against, a system of research ethics governance. Instead, we defend governance in social research on the grounds that research, as an institutionalised form of enquiry, is a constitutive element of human flourishing, and that society ought to be concerned with the flourishing of its members. We conclude by considering the governance arrangements that follow from, and are justified by, our arguments.

Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley

“…We are grateful to Martyn Hammersley for his response1 to our paper 2. In particular, we appreciate the extent to which his arguments are in many important respects directly in line with the concerns and claims that we advance.…”

'Text-work' in Research Ethics Review: The significance of documents in and beyond committee meetings

“…Recent debates have highlighted disagreement about how RECs should work and their role with fundamental concerns that researcher autonomy and the freedom to research and pursue knowledge is curtailed by mandatory and anticipatory review (Hammersley 2018). Acknowledging the authority of RECs and ongoing concerns about consistency and idiosyncrasy (Van Den Hoonaard 2011), the inevitability of disagreement in review is addressed by proposing that there is a need for a reliable method for making decisions and the need for ethical expertise (Sheehan et al 2018) which goes beyond the straightforward, consistent application of procedure. This argument suggests that a mechanical application of procedure would not necessarily result in a sound decision on research.…”

“…Codes can never be the sole route to decision-making because they require interpretation (Savulescu 2017). Most recently accounts have stressed accountability in decision-making (Sheehan et al 2018) in an argument which acknowledges difficulties with current review (here in the context of social, research) but nevertheless asserts the continuation of governance largely in its current form.…”

Diversity of scholarship in medical ethics

“…The extended essay on research ethics by Sheehan et al 1 similarly displays this mix of furthering theoretical debate and facilitating ethical action. These authors respond to recent critiques of ethical regulation for social science research.…”