Reflexivity in Research Practice: Informed Consent with Children at School and at Home

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayley Davies

Informed consent is a key consideration in ethical research, particularly research conducted with children. Devising an approach to and obtaining informed consent is a complex task involving multiple considerations. The examples used in this paper are derived from a study investigating how children constitute family members and close relationships. The paper is divided into two sections. The first section suggests that researchers should take a reflexive approach to their professional research practice and addresses how a researcher's professional location determines their particular ethical approach. Consideration is given to how the researcher's particular ethical approach can be achieved in consultation with academic thought and research ethics guidelines, which often offer contradictory advice on important ethical issues. The second section of the paper addresses how researchers negotiate their approach to informed consent in particular research contexts which offer challenges to the researcher's thinking about research participants or chosen procedures for obtaining and maintaining that informed consent is upheld. The paper concludes by arguing that the researcher can incorporate academic thought and aspects of the research ethics guidelines in an approach to informed consent that simultaneously values the research participants and the ethical practices operating in the research setting. Such an approach involves careful negotiation and consideration of the interests of all stakeholders in the research process.

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Zschirnt

Correspondence testing to research discrimination in the marketplace has become common and the use of internet applications has allowed researchers to send greater numbers of applications. While questions of research ethics always arise when planning a correspondence test, the issue receives relatively little attention in published correspondence tests. This paper addresses the question of ethics in correspondence testing in the age of ready internet access. It focusses on the ethical issues that arise in correspondence testing, looking at potential problems (regarding voluntary participation, informed consent, deception, entrapment of employers, employers’ rights) and possible solutions, and technical challenges. European country examples show that the ethical questions raised in correspondence testing have to be renegotiated depending on the national context. The paper argues that correspondence testing, if planned carefully and executed responsibly, can meet most of the ethical requirements of Social Science ethics guidelines.


2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 106-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Stanley ◽  
Sue Wise

The ESRC's (2010) Framework for Research Ethics extends the remit of its 2005 research ethics framework in three significant ways: the system is to be fully mandatory and it will no longer be possible to make the case that no out of the ordinary ethical issues arise; the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) set up under the ESRC's 2005 document have extended remit, including reviewing all research proposals accepted by the ESRC and other funding bodies; and funding will depend on the REC review, with its purview extending through a project's life. The 2010 document is reviewed in detail and the conclusion is drawn that it is not fit for purpose. Six wider issues raised by the FRE document are discussed: the consultation process by the ESRC was insufficient and the informed consent of the social science community was not obtained; the ethics creep involved will involve unnecessary bureaucratisation; the RECs will operate without expert discipline-specific knowledge using unethical generalist criteria; the overall effects long-term will be deleterious to the research base; the FRE document unacceptably ignores the professional associations and their research ethics guidelines; and the ESRC's system of the expert peer review of funding applications will be undermined.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed I.U. Khan ◽  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽  
Matthew Holek ◽  
Faris Bdair ◽  
Zoha H. Durrani ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) often have complex objectives aimed at assessing feasibility of conducting a larger study. These may not be clear to participants in pilot studies. Methods Here, we aimed to assess the transparency of informed consent in PAFS by investigating whether researchers communicate, through patient information leaflets and consent forms, key features of the studies. We collected this data from original versions of these documents submitted for ethics approval and the final approved documents for PAFS submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. Results One hundred eighty-four PAFS, submitted for ethics approval from 2004 to 2020, were included, and we found that of the approved consent documents which were provided to participants, 83.2% (153) stated the terms “pilot” or “feasibility” in their title, 12% (22) stated the definition of a pilot/feasibility study, 42.4% (78) of the studies stated their intent to assess feasibility, 19.6% (36) stated the specific feasibility objectives, 1.6% (3) stated the criteria for success of the pilot study, and 0.5% (1) stated all five of these criteria. After ethics review, a small increase in transparency occurred, ranging from 1.6 to 2.8% depending on the criteria. By extracting data from the protocols of the PAFS, we found that 73.9% (136) stated intent to assess feasibility, 71.2% (131) stated specific feasibility objectives, and 33.7% (62) stated criteria for success of the study to lead to a larger study. Conclusion The transparency of informed consent in PAFS is inadequate and needs to be specifically addressed by research ethics guidelines. Research ethics boards and researchers ought to be made aware and mindful of best practices of informed consent in the context of PAFS.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sapfo Lignou

Cluster randomised trials are an increasingly important methodological tool in health research but they present challenges to the informed consent requirement. In the relatively limited literature on the ethics of cluster research there is not much clarity about the reasons for which seeking informed consent in cluster randomised trials may be morally challenging. In this paper, I distinguish between the cases where informed consent in cluster trials may be problematic due to the distinct features of ‘population-based’ interventions, which have not been adequately discussed in the research ethics literature, and the cases where informed consent may be problematic for reasons that investigators also encounter in other research designs. I claim that informed consent requirements in cluster trials should be adjusted to the level of risk involved, arguing for a more comprehensive notion of research risk than that currently found in the research ethics guidelines, and the amount of freedom to be sacrificed in relation to a particular research aim. I conclude that these two factors are the most important to consider when assessing whether a cluster study should proceed when informed consent is infeasible or difficult to obtain.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 475-478
Author(s):  
Matthé Scholten ◽  
Jochen Vollmann

In this case commentary, we analyze ethical concerns that were raised in response to an interview with a woman with bipolar disorder who was under involuntary commitment. We focus on competence and voluntariness as two prerequisites for valid informed consent. We recommend that judgments of competence be based on whether prospective research participants sufficiently possess certain decision-making abilities. Based on this functional approach, we argue that manic symptoms need not undermine competence and that, even if we were to assume that the research participant became incompetent during the interview, this would not invalidate her consent retroactively. It would, however, compromise her ability to revoke her consent. We furthermore show that obtaining additional proxy consent for research participation may compromise the autonomy of service users who are competent to consent. Then we turn to the issue of voluntariness. Arguing that neither the great strength nor the external etiology of a desire compromises voluntariness, we propose that the voluntariness of a decision instead depends on whether the decision-maker endorses it on reflection. The researchers disclosed that prospective research participants’ decision about study participation would have no influence on the duration of the commitment or the quality of care. We contend that because of this neither coercion nor undue influence was exerted in the informed consent process. Nevertheless, there is an increased likelihood of perceived coercion and undue influence under conditions of involuntary commitment, and we close by suggesting some safeguards to prevent this.


2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Truman

The role of research ethics committees has expanded across the UK and North America and the process of ethical review has become re-institutionalised under proposals for research governance proposed by government. Ethics committees have gained a powerful role as gatekeepers within the research process. Underpinning the re-constitution of ethical guidelines and research governance, are a range of measures which protect institutional interests, without necessarily providing an effective means to address the moral obligations and responsibilities of researchers in relation to the production of social research. Discussion of research ethics from the standpoint of research participants who in this paper, are service users within health and social care, provides a useful dimension to current debate. In this paper I draw upon experiences of gaining ethical approval for a research study which focused on user participation within a community mental health service. I discuss the strategies used to gain ethical approval and the ‘formal concerns’ raised by the ethics committee. I then describe and discuss ethical issues which emerged from a participants’ perspective during the actual research as it was carried out. These experiences are analysed using aspects of institutional ethnography which provides a framework to explore how the experiences of research participants are mediated by texts which govern the processes of research production. The paper highlights incongruities between the formal ethical regulation of research, and the experiences of research participants in relation to ethical concerns within a research process.


Edukacja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-20
Author(s):  
Bibek Dahal ◽  

Research ethics is concerned with ethical issues that can arise while conducting research. Social science research entails a combination of three equal entities: process, context and human agency. In each study, these entities demand rich interaction with each other. Generally, research ethics questions the interrelation between the research context and the human involvement established within that context. The research context and interaction between researcher and research participants lead to variations in the construction of knowledge, while research ethics plays a major role throughout all undertakings. In this narrative review paper, I have critically reflected my arguments on behalf of research ethics as a context-specific issue. I argued that the one-size-fits-all approach of research ethics is not viable by presenting ethical practices from the South Asian perspective. The paper is organized in three specific sections – ethical theories, research ethics and its contextual practices. Research ethics is very much a private affair and directly linked to the personal outlook of the researcher towards others. The ethical issue in research is not generic, but specific to the research context, i.e. the context of the research determines what form of behaviour is ethical and what is not. I explore the idea that the South Asian context may have its own system to conduct research ethically, as in euro-western and indigenous systems.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 229-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Korina Giaxoglou

AbstractThe present article addresses ethical issues and tensions that have arisen in the context of language-focused research on web-based mourning. It renders explicit the process of ethical decision-making in research practice, illustrating key aspects of a process approach to research ethics, which calls for reflection on ethical issues as an integral and dynamic part of the project (Markham and Buchanan 2015. Ethical considerations in digital research contexts. In James Wright (ed.) Encyclopedia for Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Press. 606–613; Page et al. 2014. Researching Language and Social Media: A student guide. Oxon: Routledge). In addition, the article draws attention to some vexing ethical tensions raised in research practice and, in particular, to the uses of the terms private and public in research ethics frameworks and in discipline-specific discussions. Based on Gal’s (2005. Language ideologies compared: metaphors of public/private. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15 (1): 23–38) semiotic investigation of the private/public opposition, it is shown how the two categories are used as a language ideology of differentiation that discursively contrasts spaces and forms of emotional communication. It is argued that such metaphorical uses of the terms limit their currency in internet research on language, mourning, and death online, which tends to feature the construction and staging of a public self in semi-public contexts. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the issues raised in language-focused research on web-based mourning for research ethics as method (Markham 2004. Method as ethic, ethic as method. Journal of Information Ethics 15 (2): 37–55) and calls for the critical study of the key concepts that underlie research ethics stances as a key step in rethinking – or ‘undoing’ – ethics (Whiteman 2012. Undoing Ethics: Rethinking Practice in Online Research. London: Springer).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document