‘Is it worth doing this or is it better to commit suicide?’: On ethical clearance at a university

Abstract

The article examines the formal process of ‘ethical clearance’ for social science research at a large university and illuminates how it functions to undermine its stated purpose. We find that rather than promoting ethical standards, the bureaucratic process creates negative and cynical attitudes and game playing. For almost all participants, the entire procedure is counterproductive and experienced as absurd, creating a boomerang effect. The findings reveal how a specific rationalization effort leads to widespread experiences of irrationality, where detailed and strict organization merges with experiences of the bizarre. The article develops concepts capturing the experience and resulting organizational type: ‘orbizzarization’ and ‘absurdocracy’. These concepts enrich our understanding of toxic/irrational organizations, including Kafkaesque organizations.

It’s time to join the conversation: Visions of the Future for Qualitative Transparency and Openness in Management and Organisation Studies

“…Journals and institutions can play an important leadership role here and reduce the barriers and confusion by offering improved support and clearer guidance for scholars, including a recognition of the 'invisible workload' involved in open research(Hostler., 2023). If this support is not provided, policy changes may risk scholars feeling overburdened, disengaged and cynical about the purpose of said changes (as has already occurred within other domains of research policy, seeAlvesson & Stephens, 2024).It is therefore evident that management scholars are still exploring how (and indeed whether) to pursue open research. At present, there seems to be a growing consensus that theplace for qualitative scholars to demonstrate transparency is within journal articles, by researchers providing detailed and clear accounts of the decisions they took along the research process.…”