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

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 1056-1064 ◽  
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.”

Vulnerability as a Regulatory Category in Human Subject Research

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl H. Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Human Subject ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Human Subject Research ◽  
Human Subject Protection ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Research Regulations ◽  
Vulnerable Subjects ◽  
The Common

The concept of vulnerability has long played a central role in discussions of research ethics. In addition to its rhetorical use, vulnerability has become a term of art in U.S. and international research regulations and guidelines, many of which contain specific provisions applicable to research with vulnerable subjects. Yet, despite the frequency with which the term vulnerability is used, little consensus exists on what it actually means in the context of human subject protection or, more importantly, on how a finding of vulnerability should affect the process of research ethics review.The Common Rule, the centerpiece of the U.S. human subject protection regulations, uses the word vulnerable three times. First, it provides that institutional review boards (IRBs) that regularly review research involving a vulnerable category of subjects should consider including one or more individuals who are knowledgeable about and experienced in working with these subjects.

MRI Research Proposals Involving Child Subjects: Concerns Hindering Research Ethics Boards from Approving Them and a Checklist to Help Evaluate Them

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. DEBORAH SHILOFF ◽  
BRYAN MAGWOOD ◽  
KRISZTINA L. MALISZA
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
The United States ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Initial Development ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Research Ethics Boards ◽  
A Current

The process of research is often lengthy and can be extremely arduous. It may take many years to proceed from the initial development of an idea through to the comparison of the new modalities against a current gold-standard practice. Each step along the way involves rigorous scientific review, where protocols are scrutinized by multiple scientists not only in the specific field at hand but related fields as well. In addition to scientific review, most countries require a further review by a panel that will specifically address the ethics of the proposed research. In Canada, those panels are referred to as Research Ethics Boards (REB), with the United States counterparts known as Institutional Review Boards (IRB).

Differences between research ethics committees

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. L. Edwards ◽  
Tracey Stone ◽  
Teresa Swift
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Local Conditions ◽  
Ethical Judgments ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review

Objectives:To examine differences in the ethical judgments made by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).Methods:We did a review of the literature and included any study that attempted to compare the ethical judgments made by different RECs or IRBs when reviewing one or more protocol.Results:There were twenty-six articles reporting such discrepancies across Europe, within the United Kingdom, Spain, and United States. Of these studies, there were only five reports of some RECs approving while others rejecting the same protocol. All studies, however, reported differences in the clarifications and revisions asked of researchers regarding consent, recruitment, risks and benefits, compensation arrangements, and scientific issues.Conclusions:The studies were generally anecdotal reports of researchers trying to do research. New rules requiring a single ethical opinion for multi-site research at least in European Member States may simply conceal problematic issues in REC decision making. In the last analysis, we should expect a certain degree of variation and differences if we are to keep a committee system of review, although there is a pressing need to investigate the way in which RECs make these judgments. In particular, we need to identify the source of any aberrations, distortions, or confusions that could arbitrarily affect these judgments. Furthermore, local conditions remain important ethical considerations and should not be sidelined in pursuit of greater “consistency.”

scholarly journals Researchers’ perspectives on the role of study partners in dementia research

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 1649-1657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty S. Black ◽  
Holly Taylor ◽  
Peter V. Rabins ◽  
Jason Karlawish
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Enrollment Decisions ◽  
Caregiver Support ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Dementia Research ◽  
Role Responsibilities

ABSTRACTBackground:Study partners for dementia research participants are vital to the research process, but little is known about their role, responsibilities, and experiences. Study partners are usually family members or friends – often the patient's informal caregiver – who are knowledgeable about and usually accompany the participant to study visits. This study examines researchers’ perspectives on the role of study partners in dementia research.Methods:Qualitative data collection and analytic methods were used. Semi-structured individual interviews with principal investigators, study coordinators, and research nurses (i.e. researchers; n = 17) at two academic research sites were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed to identify themes in the data.Results:According to researchers, study partners either make or help make research enrollment and post-enrollment decisions, serve as knowledgeable informants for the participants, manage the logistics that enable participants to comply with a study's protocol, and provide comfort and encouragement for the patient to engage in and complete a study. Researchers describe ideal qualities of study partners as being able to provide reliable information, being dependable and adherent to the protocol, and not expecting a benefit. They also report that study partners may face both practical and emotional challenges during research participation. However, researchers believe that study partners derive dementia-related education, caregiver support, and satisfaction from their involvement in research.Conclusions:Investigators, potential study partners, and institutional review boards should be aware of study partners’ research responsibilities, challenges, and their interests as caregivers.

scholarly journals History of Research Ethics

1970 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Shamim Ara
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
History Of Research ◽  
History Of

DOI: 10.3329/bja.v8i1.6099Bangladesh Journal of Anatomy January 2010, Vol. 8 No. 1 pp. 1-3

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.

scholarly journals Weighing Down the Landscape: The Quarry as a Site of Rural Modernity

2018 ◽  
pp. 69-83
Author(s):  
Samuel Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Close Relation ◽  
Art Galleries ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Art Works ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
A Site ◽  
Rural Industries

This chapter argues that late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century artists seem to have been especially attracted by quarries, treating them as a means of exploring modernity through the lens of rural romanticism. Quarries regularly appear in paintings in many of the artists associated with rural modernity: William Rothenstein, Edward Wadsworth, Walter Bell, Roger Fry, and J. D. Fergusson, among them. Appreciating that there is no single way of categorising and representing quarries, this chapter (the first ever study of this important subject) explores many of the common themes to be found in paintings of quarries in the first half of the twentieth century. It considers a wide range of artists and art-works — the majority of which are owned by rural art galleries — in close relation to the history of rural industries in such regions as Cornwall, West Yorkshire, and Edinburgh.

In defence of a broad approach to public interest in health data research

2020 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-106880
Author(s):  
Angela Ballantyne ◽  
G Owen Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Conceptual Understanding ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Privacy Act ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Broad Approach

In their response to ‘Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork’, Grewal and Newson critique us for inattention to the law and putting forward an impracticably broad conceptual understanding of public interest. While we agree more work is needed to generate a workable framework for Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees (IRBs/RECs), we would contend that this should be grounded on a broad conception of public interest. This broadness facilitates regulatory agility, and is already reflected by some current frameworks such as that found in the guidelines approved under Australia’s Privacy Act. It remains unclear which elements of our broad account Grewal and Newson would reject, or indeed where the substantive disagreement with our position lies.

Qualitative research ethics on the spot

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Øye ◽  
Nelli Øvre Sørensen ◽  
Stinne Glasdam
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Review Boards

Background: The increase in medical ethical regulations and bureaucracy handled by institutional review boards and healthcare institutions puts the researchers using qualitative methods in a challenging position. Method: Based on three different cases from three different research studies, the article explores and discusses research ethical dilemmas. Objectives and ethical considerations: First, and especially, the article addresses the challenges for gatekeepers who influence the informant’s decisions to participate in research. Second, the article addresses the challenges in following research ethical guidelines related to informed consent and doing no harm. Third, the article argues for the importance of having research ethical guidelines and review boards to question and discuss the possible ethical dilemmas that occur in qualitative research. Discussion and conclusion: Research ethics must be understood in qualitative research as relational, situational, and emerging. That is, that focus on ethical issues and dilemmas has to be paid attention on the spot and not only at the desktop.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document