The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: Fit for Research Purpose?

Abstract

The ESRC's (2010) Framework for Research Ethics extends the remit of its 2005 research ethics framework in three significant ways: the system is to be fully mandatory and it will no longer be possible to make the case that no out of the ordinary ethical issues arise; the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) set up under the ESRC's 2005 document have extended remit, including reviewing all research proposals accepted by the ESRC and other funding bodies; and funding will depend on the REC review, with its purview extending through a project's life. The 2010 document is reviewed in detail and the conclusion is drawn that it is not fit for purpose. Six wider issues raised by the FRE document are discussed: the consultation process by the ESRC was insufficient and the informed consent of the social science community was not obtained; the ethics creep involved will involve unnecessary bureaucratisation; the RECs will operate without expert discipline-specific knowledge using unethical generalist criteria; the overall effects long-term will be deleterious to the research base; the FRE document unacceptably ignores the professional associations and their research ethics guidelines; and the ESRC's system of the expert peer review of funding applications will be undermined.

Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research

“…This constitutes a form of censorship, limiting and directing the kinds of research questions that may be asked and how they may be investigated [4,5,9,16,146,147]. In consequence, vulnerable patient groups are excluded from research and the voice which this may give them to apply leverage in improving care [49,148,149].…”

An alternative ethics for research: Levinas and the unheard voices and unseen faces

“…Further, it is understood that the informed consent process is dynamic and continuous; the process should be initiated in the project design and continue through implementation by way of dialogue and negotiation with those studied'. Schrag (2011), Hammersley (2009Hammersley ( , 2015, Stanley and Wise (2010), Colnerud (2015) and Dingwall (2008) have summarised other issues. University research ethics committees may lack the disciplinary skills of the peer-review process and so may fail to appreciate the particuliarities of some disciplines and proposals.…”

“…The harm from social-science research is so limited that it is outweighed by the harm caused by researchers allegedly 'playing the ethics review game'telling the committee what they want to hear, acting other than as approved or not doing necessary research, which would be a loss to society and academic freedom (Israel, 2014). Haggerty (2004) and Stanley and Wise (2010) highlight 'ethics creep', both in the prescriptions in the ESRC's ethics framework as it expanded from the 2005 version to the one in 2010, and in the operations of ethics committees. The definition of the 'harm' to be avoided is widening and the intensity of scrutiny increasing.…”

Report to the academy: power and ethics in humanities research

“…In the United Kingdom, the Economic and Social Research Council created a 'Research Ethics Framework' in 2005 which received severe criticism from especially social science researchers. The policy was met with disapproval because of its strong indebtedness to biomedical ethics regulations and its lack of engagement with issues specific to the humanities and social sciences (Dingwall 2008;Stanley and Wise 2010). Analogous policies, frameworks and review boards have also been instituted at Anglophone universities in Australia and Canada (Dingwall 2008: 4).…”