Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation.

Background: Qualitative Humanities research is perturbed by ethical review processes that routinely invoke epistemological assumptions skewed towards positivistic or deductive research, giving rise to several concerns, including increased risk aversion by University Research Ethics Committees (URECs) and the evaluation of qualitative research designs according to STEM standards.

Methods/materials: This paper presents findings from an AHRC-funded research network built to better understand how research ethics frameworks and processes might be reformed to more appropriately fit ethically challenging qualitative methodologies.

Results: There remains dissatisfaction with the current processes for awarding ethical approval and the subsequent management of ethical dimensions of projects. In spite of recent developments, UREC frameworks remain seriously flawed, with a wide divergence in the quality of expertise, procedures, and practices, leading to inconsistency in ethical approval awards.

Conclusions: These factors downgrade UK Higher Education research power in the Humanities and undermine our commitments to the researched. We propose a series of recommendations for reform.