Research Participants' Views on Ethics in Social Research: Issues for Research Ethics Committees

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 73-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Lewis ◽  
Jenny Graham
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Information Giving ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Study Participants

The study reported in this paper explored the ethical requirements of social research participants, an area where there is still little empirical research, by interviewing people who had participated in one of five recent social research studies. The findings endorse the conceptualization of informed consent as a process rather than a one-off event. Four different dynamics of decision-making were followed by participants in terms of the timing of decisions to participate and the information on which they were based. Multiple information events were important, as was verbal as well as written information. Study participants reacted unfavourably to the idea of written consent. Although prior information was relevant to participant experience of the interview, what emerged more strongly as relevant was the behaviour of interviewers and the interviewing strategy used. The authors suggest that naturalistic, authentic approaches to information-giving are necessary, and that in scrutinizing them research ethics committees need to look not only at written information but also at verbal information giving, and how interviewer information-giving is supported by training and supervision. They suggest that committees also need to concern themselves more broadly with who will carry out interviews and the training, mentoring and monitoring in place to shape their conduct of interviews. In considering research instruments, research ethics committees need to consider not only whether interviewers will capture accurate and appropriate data but also whether they are likely to lead to a satisfactory interaction for participants. Given the impossibility of anticipating each individual participants information needs and their reaction to the interviewing strategy, the authors suggest that interviewers and participants need to be encouraged to negotiate the conduct of interviews jointly, and discuss how such negotiating roles might be supported.

scholarly journals Ethical complexities in child co-research

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merle Spriggs ◽  
Lynn Gillam
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Children’S Agency ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Need For Support ◽  
And Training

Child co-research has become popular in social research involving children. This is attributed to the emphasis on children’s rights and is seen as a way to promote children’s agency and voice. It is a way of putting into practice the philosophy, common amongst childhood researchers, that children are experts on childhood. In this article, we discuss ethical complexities of involving children as co-researchers, beginning with an analysis of the literature, then drawing on data from interviews with researchers who conduct child co-research. We identify six ethical complexities, some of which are new findings which have not been mentioned before in this context. In light of these possible ethical complexities, a key finding is for researchers to be reflexive – to reflect on how the research may affect child co-researchers and participants before the research starts. A separate overriding message that came out in responses from the researchers we interviewed was the need for support and training for child co-researchers. We conclude by providing a list of questions for reflexive researchers to ask of themselves when they use child co-research methodology. We also provide important questions for human research ethics committees to ask when they review projects using child co-research.

Protecting vulnerable research participants: A Foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 640-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Truls I Juritzen ◽  
Harald Grimen ◽  
Kristin Heggen
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Participants

History has demonstrated the necessity of protecting research participants. Research ethics are based on a concept of asymmetry of power, viewing the researcher as powerful and potentially dangerous and establishing ethics committees as external agencies in the field of research. We argue in favour of expanding this perspective on relationships of power to encompass the ethics committees as one among several actors that exert power and that act in a relational interplay with researchers and participants. We employ Michel Foucault’s ideas of power as an omnipresent force which is dynamic and unstable, as well as the notion that knowledge and power are inextricably intertwined. The article discusses how research ethics committees may affect academic freedom. In addition it is pointed out that research participants could be harmed — not only by unfortunate research practices, but also by being subjected to the protective efforts of ethics monitoring bodies.

Payment of research participants: current practice and policies of Irish research ethics committees

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 591-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Roche ◽  
Romaine King ◽  
Helen M Mohan ◽  
Blanaid Gavin ◽  
Fiona McNicholas
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Participants

scholarly journals Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: a guide for the perplexed

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e054213
Author(s):  
Hayden P Nix ◽  
Charles Weijer ◽  
Jamie C Brehaut ◽  
David Forster ◽  
Cory E Goldstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trial ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Cluster Randomised

In a cluster randomised trial (CRT), intact groups—such as communities, clinics or schools—are randomised to the study intervention or control conditions. The issue of informed consent in CRTs has been particularly challenging for researchers and research ethics committees. Some argue that cluster randomisation is a reason not to seek informed consent from research participants. In fact, systematic reviews have found that, relative to individually randomised trials, CRTs are associated with an increased likelihood of inadequate reporting of consent procedures and inappropriate use of waivers of consent. The objective of this paper is to clarify this confusion by providing a practical and useful framework to guide researchers and research ethics committees through consent issues in CRTs. In CRTs, it is the unit of intervention—not the unit of randomisation—that drives informed consent issues. We explicate a three-step framework for thinking through informed consent in CRTs: (1) identify research participants, (2) identify the study element(s) to which research participants are exposed, and (3) determine if a waiver of consent is appropriate for each study element. We then apply our framework to examples of CRTs of cluster-level, professional-level and individual-level interventions, and provide key lessons on informed consent for each type of CRT.

scholarly journals Signing your life away?: Why Research Ethics Committees (REC) shouldn't always require written confirmation that participants in research have been informed of the aims of a study and their rights - the case of criminal populations. (Commentary)

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 218-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Coomber
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Embryonic Structure

This brief commentary discusses the problematic incursion of Research Ethics Committees on social research, particularly on those groups who wish (and/or indeed it is vital for their safety) to remain anonymous. It is argued that REC's, often ignorant of social science methodology, commonly attempt to impose restrictions on research and researchers that contradict their own ethical guidelines and expose them to unreasonable risk. It is further pointed out that REC's are as yet not fully established within all UK institutions but fear of litigation will mean that those who do not already have them fully in place either have some form of REC in embryonic structure or are looking to implement REC's in the near future. It is in this context that it is argued we as social scientists should be helping to actively shape the workings of incumbent and emerging REC's in order to protect research, researchers, research participants and the integrity of what REC's actually do.

Ethical Evaluation of Mental Health Social Research: Agreement Between Researchers and Ethics Committees

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliana Mondragón Barrios ◽  
Tonatiuh Guarneros García ◽  
Alberto Jiménez Tapia
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
National Surveys ◽  
Research Protocols ◽  
Significant Difference

The objective of this article is to compare various ethical issues considered by social scientists and research ethics committees in the evaluation of mental health social research protocols. We contacted 47 social scientists and 10 members of ethics committees in Mexico with two electronic national surveys that requested information from both groups related to the application of ethical principles in mental health social research. The results showed no significant difference between these groups in the value placed on the ethical issues explored. Based on this finding, we make proposals to strengthen the collaboration between the two groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document