Response to Sheehan et al’s ‘In defence of governance: ethics review and social research’

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
pp. 717-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martyn Hammersley
Keyword(s):  
Social Research ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Ethics Regulation

This response welcomes Sheehan et al’s discussion of the criticisms that have been made of mandatory, pre-emptive ethics regulation and their outline of a philosophical rationale for it. However, it is argued that they misrepresent some of the key criticisms and fail to provide any effective response to them.

scholarly journals In defence of governance: ethics review and social research

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
pp. 710-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Sheehan ◽  
Michael Dunn ◽  
Kate Sahan
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Human Flourishing ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
The Social ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Governance Arrangements ◽  
Constitutive Element

There is a growing body of literature that has sought to undermine systems of ethical regulation, and governance more generally, within the social sciences. In this paper, we argue that any general claim for a system of research ethics governance in social research depends on clarifying the nature of the stake that society has in research. We show that certain accounts of this stake—protecting researchers’ freedoms; ensuring accountability for resources; safeguarding welfare; and supporting democracy—raise relevant ethical considerations that are reasonably contested. However, these accounts cannot underpin a general claim in favour of, or against, a system of research ethics governance. Instead, we defend governance in social research on the grounds that research, as an institutionalised form of enquiry, is a constitutive element of human flourishing, and that society ought to be concerned with the flourishing of its members. We conclude by considering the governance arrangements that follow from, and are justified by, our arguments.

Effective partnership and adequate investment underpin a successful response: key factors in dealing with HIV increases

Sexual Health ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Bernard ◽  
Susan Kippax ◽  
Don Baxter
Keyword(s):  
Hiv Prevention ◽  
Social Research ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Hiv And Aids ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Financial Investment ◽  
Gay Community ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Prevention Activities

Background: Australia has mounted an effective response to HIV and AIDS by investing in evidence-informed policy. Recently, in response to increases in HIV in some states in Australia, the New South Wales Department of Health set up a ‘think tank’ to examine differences in epidemiological and behavioural data, policies, strategies and community responses in order to account for state-based differences and ensure an effective ongoing response to HIV. Methods: The National Centre in HIV Social Research undertook key informant interviews with major stakeholders to help understand differences in responses by the three states most affected by HIV in Australia – Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. In parallel, the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations completed an analysis of the investments in HIV-prevention activities targeting gay men in all jurisdictions in Australia. The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations also analysed the strategic contexts and government responses to HIV in the three states. Results: There were significant differences between New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria in the way the HIV partnership functions. Type of prevention strategy and level of financial investment in prevention activities appear to be related to the effectiveness of the ongoing response to HIV. Conclusions: An active commitment to and adequate resourcing of HIV prevention by all stakeholders in the HIV partnership – government and non-government departments, researchers and gay community organisations – is crucial if Australia is to respond effectively to HIV among gay and other men who have sex with men.

scholarly journals Social Research and Ethics Review

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 43-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Rawbone
Keyword(s):  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Review

scholarly journals Covert research and adult protection and safeguarding: an ethical dilemma?

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Parker ◽  
Sara Ashencaen Crabtree
Keyword(s):  
Social Research ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Social Utility ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
The Social ◽  
Vulnerable People ◽  
Access To Data ◽  
Adult Protection

Purpose – This paper aims to consider the contentious issue of covert research in studying the social contexts of vulnerable groups. It explores its potential utility in areas where overt strategies may be problematic or denied; and examines and problematises the issue of participant consent. Design/methodology/approach – Using a literature-based review and selected previous studies, the paper explores the uses and abuses of covert research in relation to ethics review proceedings governing social research, with an especial focus on vulnerability. Findings – Findings indicate that although the use of covert research is subject to substantial critique by apparently transgressing the often unquestioned moral legitimacy of informed consent, this carries ethical and practical utility for research related to safeguarding concerns. Arguably covert research enables research access to data likely to reveal abusive and oppressive practices. Research limitations/implications – Covert research assists in illuminating the hidden voices and lives of vulnerable people that may otherwise remain inaccessible. Such research needs to be subject to rigorous ethical standards to ensure that it is both justified and robust. Practical implications – Emphasising the need to consider all angles, questions and positions when addressing the social problem of adult protection and safeguarding. Originality/value – Increasingly social research is treated as being as potentially harmful as medical research. Ethics review tends towards conservative conformity, legitimising methodologies that may serve less social utility than other forms of investigation that privilege the safeguarding of vulnerable people.

scholarly journals Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
pp. 719-720
Author(s):  
Mark Sheehan ◽  
Michael Dunn ◽  
Kate Sahan
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Reasonable Disagreement ◽  
The Core ◽  
Ethics Review

In this response, we first tackle what we take to be the core disagreement between ourselves and Hammersley, namely the justification for our model of social research ethics governance. We then consider what follows from our defence of governance for ethics review and show how these claims attend to the specific concerns outlined by Hammersley.

scholarly journals Ethics Are Admin: Australian Human Research Ethics Review Forms as (Un)Ethical Actors

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 205630511876881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Whelan
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Community Of Researchers ◽  
Australian Universities ◽  
Application Forms

In Australian universities, social research projects secure institutional approval as ethical through research ethics committees, and are defined and communicated to these committees through standardized local application forms. In organizational terms, ethics are instituted first as an administrative ritual anterior to research, and routinely elided as such. The documentation constituting this ritual thus bears scrutiny, in terms of what it says and what it does, and in turn, what it requires applicants to say and do. Such scrutiny is a means of fleshing out the standard critique of prospective ethics review from social media researchers: that the opportunity for a proper conversation about research ethics in the community of researchers is supplanted by an administrative exercise in “box ticking.” This paper discusses these ethics application forms, attending specifically to the ethical consequences of the stance they require the applicant to take with respect to prospective research participants, and the implications of their formulation of research as a process of data extraction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document