The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-12-25 DOI:10.1177/17470161221147202
Jessica Carniel, A. Hickey, Kim Southey, Annette Brömdal, Lynda Crowley-Cyr, Douglas C. Eacersall, William F Farmer, R. Gehrmann, T. Machin, Yosheen Pillay
{"title":"The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes","authors":"Jessica Carniel, A. Hickey, Kim Southey, Annette Brömdal, Lynda Crowley-Cyr, Douglas C. Eacersall, William F Farmer, R. Gehrmann, T. Machin, Yosheen Pillay","doi":"10.1177/17470161221147202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) find these processes to be misaligned, if not outrightly obstructive to their research. This leads some scholars to advocate against HASS participation in institutional review processes as they currently stand, or in their entirety. While ethics review processes can present a challenge to HASS researchers, these are not insurmountable and, in fact, present opportunities for ethics review boards (ERBs) to mediate their practices to better attend to the concerns of the HASS disciplines. By highlighting the potential value of the ethics review process in recognising the nuances and specificity across different forms of research, this article explores the generative possibilities of greater collaboration between HASS researchers and ERBs. Remaining cognisant of the epistemic and methodological differences that mark different disciplinary formations in turn will benefit the ethical conduct of all researchers.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"139 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221147202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) find these processes to be misaligned, if not outrightly obstructive to their research. This leads some scholars to advocate against HASS participation in institutional review processes as they currently stand, or in their entirety. While ethics review processes can present a challenge to HASS researchers, these are not insurmountable and, in fact, present opportunities for ethics review boards (ERBs) to mediate their practices to better attend to the concerns of the HASS disciplines. By highlighting the potential value of the ethics review process in recognising the nuances and specificity across different forms of research, this article explores the generative possibilities of greater collaboration between HASS researchers and ERBs. Remaining cognisant of the epistemic and methodological differences that mark different disciplinary formations in turn will benefit the ethical conduct of all researchers.
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
伦理审查与人文社会科学:伦理审查过程中的学科差异
伦理审查过程经常被认为是从植根于生物医学学科的规范和协议延伸出来的。因此,许多人文社会科学(HASS)的研究人员发现这些过程是不一致的,如果不是完全阻碍他们的研究的话。这导致一些学者主张反对HASS参与机构审查过程,因为他们目前的立场,或全部。虽然伦理审查过程可能给HASS研究人员带来挑战,但这些挑战并不是不可克服的,事实上,伦理审查委员会(erb)有机会调解他们的做法,以更好地关注HASS学科的关注。通过强调伦理审查过程在识别不同研究形式的细微差别和特异性方面的潜在价值,本文探讨了HASS研究人员和erb之间加强合作的产生可能性。认识到标志着不同学科形成的认识论和方法论差异,反过来将有利于所有研究人员的伦理行为。
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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach
×
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