Two Models of Social Science Research Ethics Review

Abstract

Assuming that the purpose of research ethics review is to support the ethical conduct and dissemination of good quality research, a question can be raised concerning whether ethics review of research really improves the practice of researchers. Specifically, we might distinguish the activities that go on as part of the review process from those activities that constitute the data collection phase of the research, and ask under what conditions the former have a positive impact on the latter. Two different models of ethics review can be distinguished, term them ‘compliance’ and ‘reflexivity’-based reviews. Compliance-based models of review require researchers to show how they are complying with a given set of rules or protocols for research. Reflexivity-based models require researchers to articulate the ethical issues involved in their research and to explain and justify the way in which they plan to manage them. It is suggested here that there is reason to think that reflexivity-based models of ethics review are more likely to have a positive effect on the practice of social science research than compliance-based reviews.

Response to Schrag: What are ethics committees for anyway? A defence of social science research ethics review

“…This says that ethics review itself may be useful, even necessary, but that it needs to be reformed. I have myself written (Jennings SLM, 2010) advocating some of the sorts of changes that he mentions and in my previous job was able to implement some of them (e.g. the short ethics form which basically asks ‘what are you doing?’ and ‘what are the ethics issues and how are you dealing with them?’).…”

“It’s Almost as if Stakeholder Engagement is the Annoying ‘Have-to-do'…”: Can Ethics Review Help Address the “3 Ts” of Tokenism, Toxicity, and Tailoring in Stakeholder Engagement?

“…Researchers should consider which stakeholders might be at increased risk of harm if engaged, and consult community experts regarding mitigation. Also, RECs should adopt a "reflexive" approach versus a "compliance" approach (Jennings, 2010) where RECs encourage applicants to surface ethical considerations rather than comply with a set of rules.…”

Research Ethics Board (REB) Members’ Preparation for, and Perceived Knowledge of Research Ethics

“…This concern is further exacerbated if ethical guidelines are not read in the first instance. Without conformity to guidelines, the process of obtaining research ethics may be more an act of compliance to a template and institutional norms, than a process involving considered compliance with standards by ethical governance organizations (Allen 2008;Jennings 2010). The issue of meeting a standard may help to account for the fact that the majority of research ethics applications appear to be written by research students and research assistants instead of principal investigators (Lindorff 2010;Tilley 2008).…”