Uneasy Relations: Crime Ethnographies and Research Ethics

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-59
Author(s):  
Kevin D. Haggerty
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Conduct ◽  
Ethics Framework ◽  
The Past ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

This chapter accentuates some of the reasons why crime ethnographies can face difficulties with the ethics review process, including prominent issues relating to informed consent, risk and harm, anonymity, and criminal behavior. Universities in most Western countries have established research ethics boards over the past twenty years responsible for assessing the ethical conduct of research. Qualitative research can fit poorly into the largely positivist ethics framework, resulting in an often-frustrating situation for ethnographers seeking to move ahead with their research. One paradox of this situation is that the ethics process itself seems poised to give rise to a subset of academic deviants in the form of crime ethnographers who may find that they are obliged to circumvent or disregard some formal ethical strictures in order to engage in ethnographic practices that otherwise seem uncontroversial or even innocuous.

scholarly journals “Only Applies to Research Conducted in Sweden…”: Dilemmas in Gaining Ethics Approval in Transnational Qualitative Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 160940691986944
Author(s):  
Gabriele Griffin ◽  
Doris Leibetseder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
European Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethical Conduct ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

Transnational research funders such as the European Commission and NordForsk increasingly require researchers to conduct transnational research. Yet, there is little research on what this means for seeking ethics approval, not least for qualitative researchers. Much work on ethics approval comes from Canada, the United States, and other Anglophone countries, often in a health-related context, and centers on issues between researchers and research ethics boards (REBs), or on inconsistent or inappropriate decision-making by REBs. Ethical conduct within research has, of course, generated a rich literature but not on gaining ethics approval when conducting qualitative transnational research. Rather, the underlying situation usually is that the research is conducted in the same geopolitical space as where the REB is located. Drawing on two cases studies, in which researchers located in one country, Sweden, sought ethics approval to conduct research in other European countries, we explore some of the challenges that we faced in gaining such approval and provide some suggestions how this process might be made both more efficient and more productive for researchers and research funders alike.

scholarly journals A Canadian Perspective on Ethics Review and Neuroimaging: Tensions and Solutions

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Racine ◽  
Georg Northoff ◽  
Ravi S. Menon ◽  
Jonathan Kimmelman ◽  
Judy Illes
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Educational Change ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
The Future ◽  
Canadian Perspective ◽  
Research Ethics Boards ◽  
Unexpected Findings

Neuroimaging research has raised ethical concerns such as the management of unexpected findings and the classification and assessment of risks. Research ethics boards (REBs) bear responsibility for the oversight of these challenges but neuroimagers struggle with the practical aspects of ethics review and report that administrative load and inconsistency contribute to eroding confidence and trust in ethics review. Our goal was to discuss and propose strategies for institutional and educational change to improve ethics review. We used an iterative and deliberative workshop-based writing process involving multiple disciplines. We propose recommendations in three tension areas: (1) communication between researchers and REBs; (2) collaboration and sharing of expertise between REBs; and (3) practical considerations and the needs of neuroimagers engaged in the ethics review process. Our recommendations are intended as openings rather than endpoints. Researchers and research ethics governance communities should decide on the future uptake of these recommendations.

scholarly journals Ethics Review Concerns of Canada's Distance Researchers

2011 ◽  
pp. 230-248
Author(s):  
Patrick J. Fahy
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality

Ethics review of research involving humans is intended to protect human dignity by balancing harms and benefits. The foci and methods used in reviews vary nationally, but tend, as in Canada, to address core principles including free and informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, inclusiveness and fairness, and the rights of dependent subjects. Under examination in relation to the policy that governs research ethics in Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS, 2005), these principles admit numerous exceptions, a fact that, as shown by a study reported here, is better understood by those actually engaged in research than those who are not. The implications of these findings, and the specific priorities of non- Canadian researchers (especially those in developing nations), are described and discussed.

scholarly journals A call for a streamlined ethics review process for multijurisdictional, child health research studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 406-408
Author(s):  
Brigitte Lemyre ◽  
Jaya P Bodani ◽  
Stefani Doucette ◽  
Michael S Dunn ◽  
Deepak Louis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Youth Health ◽  
Administrative Costs ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Preterm Born ◽  
Child Health Research

Abstract To be time and resource efficient in neonatal research and to answer clinically relevant questions with validity and generalizability, large numbers of infants from multiple hospitals need to be included. Multijurisdictional research in Canada is currently fraught with research ethics review process hurdles that lead to delays, administrative costs, and possibly termination of projects. We describe our experience applying for ethics review to 13 sites in 7 provinces for a project comparing two standard of care therapies for preterm born infants with respiratory distress syndrome. We welcome the current opportunity created by the Institute of Human Development Child and Youth Health and the Institute for Genetics, to collaboratively identify practical solutions that would benefit Canadian researchers, Research Ethics Boards, and children and families.

The Research Ethics Review Process and Ethics Review Narratives

2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 377-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen H. Fitzgerald ◽  
Paul A. Phillips ◽  
Elisa Yule
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review

scholarly journals Negotiating Responsibility for Navigating Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research: A Review of Miller, Birch, Mauthner, and Jessop’s (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research, Second Edition

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle McCarron
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

Ethics in Qualitative Research (Miller, Birch Mauthner, & Jessop, 2012), now in its second edition, uses a feminist framework to present a variety of issues pertinent to qualitative researchers. Topics include traditional challenges for qualitative researchers (e.g., access to potential participants, informed consent, overlapping roles), as well as those that have garnered more attention in recent years, particularly with regard to uses and consequences of technological advances in research. The book is critical of committees whose function it is to review proposed research and grant research ethics approval (e.g., University Research Ethics Committees [URECs], Research Ethics Boards [REBs], and Institutional Review Boards [IRBs]). The authors of this book are situated within the United Kingdom. The editors take the position that ethics oversight by the researchers themselves is preferable and that such boards and committees are not well equipped to review qualitative research. A rebuttal to this position is presented within this review. Ethics in Qualitative Research provides a good overview of ethical issues that researchers face and is effective in merging theory with practice. It would be strengthened by avoiding the debate over URECs or by offering concrete suggestions for how URECs can improve their reviews of qualitative research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document