Guidelines for Ethical Review of Qualitative Research

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 90-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Walker ◽  
I. Holloway ◽  
S. Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Key Questions

In recognition of the important ethical issues posed by qualitative research in health care, the authors present key questions to aid ethical review. The purpose is to assist lay and professional members of research ethics committees in their assessment of applications involving qualitative research methods and to inform researchers intending to submit such applications for ethical approval. For the benefit of those less familiar with this type of research, the authors include an overview of different types of qualitative research, together with an explanation of terms commonly used by qualitative researchers.

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 Regulating Research: The Origins and Institutionalization of Research Ethics Committees in Sweden

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Helena Tinnerholm Ljungberg
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Karolinska Institute ◽  
Swedish Society ◽  
The 1960S

Abstract The year 1966 saw the birth of Sweden’s first formal Research Ethics Committee (rec) at the medical university Karolinska Institute (ki). In the following years other ethical committees were institutionalized, coordinated by a working group steered by the Swedish Medical Research Council (smrc). Research ethical issues of a principled nature were also discussed by the Ethics Delegation of the Swedish Society of Medicine (ssm). Between 1966 and 1975, around 500 research proposals were assessed by rec s in Sweden, and the medical community started to follow certain protocols when preparing applications for ethical review. This paper traces the origins and early development of the rec system in Sweden and offers an analysis of their practices, discussions, and assessments through the reading of meeting protocols and correspondence between central actors. The aim is to sketch out how and why the system of research ethics committees emerged, became institutionalized, and developed in Sweden from the 1960s to the early 1980s. This paper connects to the recent empirical turn in historical research on medical research ethics and regulations, by focusing on how the insiders, i.e., the medical community, reacted to new demands of ethical review. The analysis illustrates how the medical researchers interacted with transnational funders, the Patients Association, a broader public, governmental authorities, and parliamentary politics when developing the Swedish rec system.

scholarly journals A review of ethics in developing country in perspective of dental research

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Haider Ali Khan ◽  
Shamima Parvin Lasker
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Developing Country ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Dental Research

The objectives of this review were to examine the ethical issues in research in developing country and perspective of dental research. In this review, we performed the systematic literature search, screening process through the web in existing published and unpublished articles and reports that related to our topics between1990 to 2013. In the past few decades, the research and discoveries in the discipline of dentistry have increased dramatically. Recently many dental Institutes in developing country is constantly looking for opportunities to borrow, enhance, and integrate knowledge from biomedical and technological research by using modern technology. The retrieved information in this review reflect that to make any research involving human subjects ethically acceptable, a number of key features have to be considered by the researchers. Those who conduct oral health research are compelled by regulations and convention to follow established ethical standards to protect human rights. Bioethics and in ethical review of research in developing countries reveals many major gaps and have seen that there are indeed many ethical issues to be considered to clinical trials taking place in developing countries. Professional societies have a major influence in shaping the moral tone and ethical climate for research through the adoption of standards, the development of educational programs designed to reinforce those standards. Research ethics committees or institutional ethical review committees is to ensure that studies involving human research participants are designed to conform the relevant ethical standards and that the rights and welfare of participants are protected. Research ethics committees should not function under the influence of others and should ensures the favorable balance of potential benefits and risks. In developing country it is necessary to strengthen local capacity and manpower by developing innovative training models for ethics that are cost-effective and sustainable. The actions required to move ahead in this field include strengthening bioethics capacity, linking health research to community needs in a transparent and participatory process and increasing communication between scientists and ethicists in industrialized and developing countries. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bioethics.v5i1.18443 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014 Vol.5(1): 11-19

Human research ethics committees members: ethical review personal perceptions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Handal ◽  
Chris Campbell ◽  
Kevin Watson ◽  
Marguerite Maher ◽  
Keagan Brewer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Personal Perceptions

scholarly journals Is It Time to Re-Evaluate the Ethics Governance of Social Media Research?

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 452-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Samuel ◽  
W. Ahmed ◽  
H. Kara ◽  
C. Jessop ◽  
S. Quinton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Media Ethics ◽  
Research Institution ◽  
Media Research ◽  
Social Media Research

This article reports on a U.K. workshop on social media research ethics held in May 2018. There were 10 expert speakers and an audience of researchers, research ethics committee members, and research institution representatives. Participants reviewed the current state of social media ethics, discussing well-rehearsed questions such as what needs consent in social media research, and how the public/private divide differs between virtual and real-life environments. The lack of answers to such questions was noted, along with the difficulties posed for ethical governance structures in general and the work of research ethics committees in particular. Discussions of these issues enabled the creation of two recommendations. The first is for research ethics committees and journal editors to add the category of ‘data subject research’ to the existing categories of ‘text research’ and ‘human subject research’. This would reflect the fact that social media research does not fall into either of the existing categories and so needs a category of its own. The second is that ethical issues should be considered at all stages of social media research, up to and including aftercare. This acknowledges that social media research throws up a large number of ethical issues throughout the process which, under current arrangements for ethical research governance, risks remaining unaddressed.

scholarly journals Justice: a key consideration in health policy and systems research ethics

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. e001942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt ◽  
Verina Wild ◽  
Edwine Barasa ◽  
Dorcas Kamuya ◽  
Lucy Gilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Health Policy And Systems

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is increasingly being funded and conducted worldwide. There are currently no specific guidelines or criteria for the ethical review and conduct of HPSR. Academic debates on HPSR ethics in the scholarly literature can inform the development of guidelines. Yet there is a deficiency of academic bioethics work relating to justice in HPSR. This gap is especially problematic for a field like HPSR, which can entail studies that intervene in ways affecting the social and health system delivery structures of society. In this paper, we call for interpreting the principle of justice in a more expansive way in developing and reviewing HPSR studies (relative to biomedical research). The principle requires advancing health equity and social justice at population or systems levels. Drawing on the rich justice literature from political philosophy and public health ethics, we propose a set of essential justice considerations to uphold this principle. These considerations are relevant for research funders, researchers, research ethics committees, policymakers, community organisations and others who are active in the HPSR field.

scholarly journals COREC: the end of trainee-driven clinical research?

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (9) ◽  
pp. 328-329
Author(s):  
N Patel ◽  
B George ◽  
A Chandratreya ◽  
S Bollen
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Central Office ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Application Process ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
The Government ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Local Research

Since 1 March 2004 anyone who wishes to set up clinical trials in the United Kingdom has to go through an extensive application process to gain ethical approval. The Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) was set up by the government both to standardise and centralise the process and to address concerns regarding patient care, safety and confidentiality. We are encouraged to complete this online (http://www.corec.org.uk/). Here awaits a 60-page form, which although not all its pages are applicable, is time-consuming. There is also a research and development (RD) form (http://www.rdform.org.uk/) to complete, which deals with cost issues and a Caldicott form dealing with patient confidentiality. On top of all that there may be other local forms to complete. There is already evidence that applications to local research ethics committees are down by around 40% in the years 2003–2004.

Making Ethics Work in Collaborative Projects

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Emily Mauldon
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Research ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Primary Health

This article discusses problems a research team had managing their ethical obligations during a short project, and considers the implications of these problems for better understanding and carrying out ethical research in the future. Two key points will be proposed. Initially, it will be argued that the culture of ethical research as articulated within the research community may not be universally accepted within the primary health care sector. The nature of "ethical conduct" within clinical practice, service provision and research is not the same. Further, practical difficulties the researchers experienced while trying to gain approval from ethics committees and implement the proposed research plan highlight some ways in which institutional ethical review processes are structurally unsuited to the requirements of small collaborative projects. Understanding the different ways in which the term "ethics" is used will allow for a more expedient translation of concepts between different health professionals. Recognising the practical constraints ethical review places on the research process may help reduce some of the frustration primary health care professionals can experience when faced with the requirements of research ethics committees. Due to the history of, and cultural commitment to, ethical research within the university sector, those with formal academic training in research are well placed to assume responsibility for managing the ethics process when involved in cross-sectoral research. This responsibility may include the need to educate team members and study participants about the importance of research ethics.

scholarly journals Participatory Research and the Medicalization of Research Ethics Processes

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tehseen Noorani ◽  
Andrew Charlesworth ◽  
Alison Kite ◽  
Morag McDermont
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Mental Distress ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
Methodological Innovation

This article illustrates how medicalized epistemologies and methodologies significantly influence the institutional ethical review processes applied to sociolegal research in law schools. It argues this development has elevated particular renderings of mental distress and objectivity to universal definitions, potentially placing a straitjacket on methodological innovation. The authors use two case studies from their experiences as researchers in a UK Law School, alongside a small-scale survey of sociolegal researchers in other UK law schools, to illustrate the problems that can arise in securing ethical approval for sociolegal research, in particular with participatory research designs that mobilize ideas of mental distress and objectivity not premised on conventional medical understandings. The article develops key proposals that the authors feel merit further inquiry. First, there should be a comprehensive evaluation of how the jurisdiction of ethical review for sociolegal research is established. Second, sociolegal scholarship can contribute to debates concerning the discursive, material and procedural constitution of institutional ethics approval processes. Finally, we might rethink the nature of, and relationship between, university-based research ethics committees and National Health Service research ethics committees, by placing both within wider ecologies of capacities for ethical decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document