Human Research Ethics Review Challenges in the Social Sciences: A Case for Review

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Academic Ethics Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1007/s10805-024-09532-9
Jim Macnamara
{"title":"Human Research Ethics Review Challenges in the Social Sciences: A Case for Review","authors":"Jim Macnamara","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09532-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ethical conduct is a maxim in scholarly research as well as scholarly endeavour generally. In the case of research involving humans, few if any question the necessity for ethics approval of procedures by ethics boards or committees. However, concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of ethics approval processes for social science research arguing that the orientation of ethics boards and committees to biomedical and experimental scientific research, institutional risk aversion, and other factors lead to over-protection of research participants and overly restrictive processes that delay and sometimes prevent important social science research. This is particularly significant when social science research is required to respond to social, environmental, or health emergencies and in contract research projects for the reasons explained. This analysis of an ethics approval case study adds to increasing concerns that ethics approval processes can have perverse effects in the social sciences. While a single case study does not provide generalizable findings, in-depth analysis of a significant case can identify issues that need to be further explored. Recommendations offer pathways for facilitating social science research including in emergency situations in which timeliness is important and in collaborative approaches such as participatory action research, while maintaining high ethical standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09532-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ethical conduct is a maxim in scholarly research as well as scholarly endeavour generally. In the case of research involving humans, few if any question the necessity for ethics approval of procedures by ethics boards or committees. However, concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of ethics approval processes for social science research arguing that the orientation of ethics boards and committees to biomedical and experimental scientific research, institutional risk aversion, and other factors lead to over-protection of research participants and overly restrictive processes that delay and sometimes prevent important social science research. This is particularly significant when social science research is required to respond to social, environmental, or health emergencies and in contract research projects for the reasons explained. This analysis of an ethics approval case study adds to increasing concerns that ethics approval processes can have perverse effects in the social sciences. While a single case study does not provide generalizable findings, in-depth analysis of a significant case can identify issues that need to be further explored. Recommendations offer pathways for facilitating social science research including in emergency situations in which timeliness is important and in collaborative approaches such as participatory action research, while maintaining high ethical standards.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会科学中的人类研究伦理审查挑战:审查案例
伦理行为是学术研究和一般学术工作的准则。在涉及人类的研究中,很少有人质疑伦理委员会对研究程序进行伦理审批的必要性。然而,有人对社会科学研究伦理审批程序的适当性表示担忧,认为伦理委员会的工作方向是生物医学和实验科学研究,机构规避风险,以及其他因素导致对研究参与者的过度保护和过于严格的程序,从而延误、有时甚至阻止了重要的社会科学研究。由于上述原因,当社会科学研究需要应对社会、环境或健康方面的紧急情况时,以及在合同研究项目中,这种情况尤为突出。通过对伦理审批案例的分析,我们进一步认识到,伦理审批程序可能会对社会科 学产生不良影响,这一点正日益引起人们的关注。虽然单个案例研究不能提供具有普遍意义的结论,但对重要案例的深入分析可以发现需要进一步探讨的问题。建议为促进社会科学研究提供了途径,包括在及时性非常重要的紧急情况下,以及在参与式行动研究等合作方法中,同时保持较高的伦理标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
期刊最新文献
Developing Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity Through an Educative Approach: Exploring Students’ Experiences and Perspectives Fabricating Citations: The Policies of New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1