Looking from the Outside/In: Re-thinking Research Ethics Review

Abstract

This paper shares my reflections on the research ethics review process, from the point of view of both a qualitative researcher and a member of an institutional research ethics review board. By considering research ethics review, first as practice, then as policy, as a relationship and, finally, as a performance, I attempt to outline a new vision of research ethics, one that engages seriously with the relationship between receiving ethics approval, and conducting ethical research.The initial idea for this paper was derived from a rather protracted and frustrating experience with receiving approval from the university's research ethics office for one of my department's major research projects. This project was conceptualized as a multipronged study that would highlight the various policies, pedagogies and practices that were being used to support academic and social equity at select schools within some of Toronto's most marginalized communities. The project served as a conceptual and theoretical "umbrella" for a series of smaller studies that would be conducted in each of the school sites; as such, each small study was designed with the overall questions, themes and goals of the larger study in mind. The only differences among them were the specific research question(s) to be asked, the specific participants to be involved, and the data collection methods to be employed (information about all of which was included in the original ethics submission). The idea was that such a multi-sited, yet conceptually-linked, study would provide unique insight into the complexities of teaching and learning for social justice in under- J Acad Ethics (2011) 9:193-204

Ethical issues in cross-cultural research

“…universal (Hamid 2010;Rivière 2011) and therefore were the only ethical issues addressed in the ethics clearance process. In this fieldwork, Bandar encountered a number of ethical dilemmas, which contradict this assumption that research ethics guidelines have universal applicability.…”

“…The development of such examples could provide important 'educative' moments for those involved in the approval process. Rivière (2011) suggests that beginning the ethics process with questions about the relations between the researcher and the researched is a valuable starting point for rethinking these issues. Interestingly, the form used by all the authors to apply for ethics clearance does include a broad question: 'Give details of the ethical considerations related to the proposed project'.…”

Thinking/writing within and outside the IRB box

“…Thinking with this concept has enabled the two of us to have generative conversations about the limits that are often placed on writing/thinking/doing research differently, and about the ways in which ideas about "data" with IRBs often push us into boxes we do not want to (and cannot) fit into. Moreover, and in relation to our first tension in this paper, we join with Rivière (2011) in imagining an ethics review process that no longer requires researchers to force their projects into a pre-existing ethical framework and instead privileges being ethical. We also advocate for:…”

“…In particular IRBs pose challenges for researchers who are attempting to move away from (let alone actively disrupt) conventional research methods (Bhattacharya, 2007). Writing from a Canadian context, Rivière (2011) explains that the guidelines regulating the review process "[do] not fully acknowledge the paradoxical and contradictory nature of research…As such, these guidelines [fail] to fully engage critical, qualitative researchers in an exploration of the ethical entanglements in which they would find themselves…" (p. 197-198). This critique echoes Lincoln & Tierney's (2004) earlier argument that, specifically within the field of education, the IRBs' stance towards qualitative research has a negative impact on early career researchers.…”

“Walking along beside the Researcher”: How Canadian REBs/IRBs are Responding to the Needs of Community-Based Participatory Research

“…We propose that additional research is needed to further our understanding of the experiences of REB/IRB that highlights the perspectives of staff and board members. We are especially interested in how REB/IRB members negotiate insider/outsider tensions presented by their dual roles as researchers and reviewers and lessons learned (see, for example, Rivière, 2011). While we found relational approaches in use in many Canadian REBs/IRBs, this was not the primary goal of our study and we recommend additional research into the use of relational approaches and possibilities for integrating them into ethics review frameworks such as the American Belmont Report (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 1979)…”