Exploring Institutional Research Ethics Systems: A Case Study From Uganda

In this chapter, the author argues for a strict interpretation of research ethics when conducting online research, and in the process, discusses these four ethical categories: the presence of the researcher in the researched context, the blurring lines between “public” and “private,” informed consent and confidentiality. In making his argument, he draws on examples from a case study in which he examined an organization that meets both online and face-to-face.

Download Full-text

Upholding “Colonial Unknowing” Through the IRB: Reframing Institutional Research Ethics

Qualitative Inquiry ◽

10.1177/1077800418787214 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 25 (9-10) ◽

pp. 1056-1064 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sheeva Sabati

Keyword(s):

Research Ethics ◽

Academic Research ◽

Institutional Review Boards ◽

Institutional Research ◽

Origin Stories ◽

History Of Research ◽

Institutional Review ◽

History Of ◽

The Common ◽

A Site

This article considers the institutionalization of research ethics as a site of “colonial unknowing” in which the racial colonial entanglements of academic research and institutions are obscured. I examine the origin stories situating Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as a response to cases of exceptional violence, most notably the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, within an otherwise neutral history of research. I then consider how the 2018 revisions to the Common Rule extend “colonial unknowing” by decontextualizing the forms of risk involved in social and behavioral research. I situate these complicities as necessary starting points toward anticolonial research ethics of “answerability.”

Download Full-text

A reflection on research ethics and citizen science

Research Ethics ◽

10.1177/1747016119868900 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 15 (3-4) ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kathleen M Oberle ◽

Stacey A Page ◽

Fintan KT Stanley ◽

Aaron A Goodarzi

Keyword(s):

Medical Research ◽

Research Ethics ◽

Citizen Science ◽

Low Risk ◽

Community Based ◽

Research Methodologies ◽

Ethics Review ◽

Research Ethics Board ◽

The One

Ethics review of research involving humans has become something of an institution in recent years. It is intended to protect participants from harm and, to that end, follows rigorous standards. Given recent changes in research methodologies utilized in medical research, it may be that ethics review for some kinds of studies needs to be reexamined. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate dialogue regarding the kind of review required for citizen science-based research. We describe a case study of a proposal submitted to our research ethics board and propose different approaches to proportionate review in research involving citizen scientists. In particular, we describe how problems with the term “participant” led to confusion in review of this study and examine the study in light of current Canadian guidelines. We suggest that the term participant and indeed the general approach to low-risk community-based studies such as the one described warrant reexamination.

Download Full-text