Conflicting interests: Critiquing the place of “institutional reputation” in research ethics reviews (original) (raw)

Beyond Criticism of Ethics Review Boards: Strategies for Engaging Research Communities and Enhancing Ethical Review Processes

Journal of Academic Ethics, 2021

A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes that determine the ethical merit of research. Citing criticism on the bureaucratic nature of ethics review processes, this literature provides a useful provocation for (re)considering how the ethics review might be enacted. Much of this criticism focuses on how ethics review boards deliberate, with particular attention given to the lack of transparency and opportunities for researcher recourse that characterise ethics review processes. Centered specifically on the conduct of ethics review boards convened within university settings, this paper draws on these inherent criticisms to focus its analysis on the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative deliberative practices. Outlining a set of principles against which ethics review boards might establish strategies for engaging with researchers and research communities, this paper draws attention to how Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility for the ethics review might be enacted in the day-today practice of the university human ethics review board. This paper develops these themes via a conceptual lens derived from Jürgen Habermas' (1984) articulation of 'communicative action' and Nancy Fraser's (1990) consideration of 'strong publics' to cast consideration of the role that human ethics review boards might play in supporting university research cultures. Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility provide useful conceptual prompts for considering how ethics review boards might undertake their work.

Overseeing Research: Ethics and the Institutional Review Board

2005

Im vorliegenden Text beziehe ich mich auf meine Erfahrungen mit dem Einreichen eines Forschungsantrags beim "Institutional Review Board" einer Universitat. In den USA sind Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) foderativ beauftragte Ethik-Komitees, in deren Verantwortung es liegt, Forschungsantrage im Sinne des Schutzes der Rechte, der Sicherheit und des Wohlergehens der Proband(inn)en zu evaluieren. Dies geschieht durch eine Risiko/Nutzen-Analyse des jeweiligen Forschungsantrags, die ihrerseits sicherstellt, dass die Einverstandniserklarungen wie auch (vertrauliche) Protokolle korrekt gehandhabt werden und dass die Auswahl der Teilnehmenden fur ein Projekt rechtmasig und gerecht vonstatten geht. Auch wenn die Notwendigkeit von Gremien wie den IRBs unbestritten ist, besteht die Gefahr, dass diese unter Umstanden durch die Art, ihre Forschung darzustellen, und durch ihre Praktiken spezifische Forschungsarten privilegieren. In dem Beitrag werden anhand einer Untersuchung zum sta...

Rethinking Ethics Review as Institutional Discourse.” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (3): 336–352. Problematizing a Normative Approach to Ethics 17

2007

In this article, the authors trace the emergence of an institutional discourse of ethical research and interrogate its effects in constituting what ethical research is taken to be and how ethical researchers are configured. They illuminate the dissonance between this regime of truth and research practice and the impli-cations for the injunction to respect others, illustrating their case with instances from their interview study with anorexic teenage girls. The authors propose that conceptualising the regulation of research ethics as an institu-tional discourse opens up the possibility for asserting counterdiscourses that place relational ethics at the center of moral decision making in research.

A Troubled Dance: Doing the Work of Research Ethics Review

Journal of Academic Ethics, 2008

The fast growing interest in the work of university ethics review boards is evident in the proliferation of research and literature in the area. This article focuses on a Research Ethics Board (REB) in the Canadian context. In-depth, open-ended interviews with REB members and findings from a qualitative study designed to examine the ethics review of school-based research are used to illustrate points raised in the paper. The author's experiences as academic researcher, advisor to student researchers and a 3-year term as an REB member inform the discussion. Macro issues related to the general workings of the board (e.g., maintaining appropriate membership) and micro issues connected to individual REB members' experiences of reviewing research applications are examined. The author's goal is to contribute to a fastgrowing conversation related to the issues that influence university ethics review while drawing attention to the contribution that faculty members' understandings of their work as REB members can make to that conversation. Keywords University ethics review. Canadian research ethics boards. REB research review practices

Institutional Review Boards: Ethics, Regulations and the Research Agenda

Proceedings …, 2009

Information Science researchers and designers are well-positioned to become active participants in scholarly and institutional conversations concerning the protection of human subjects. The overall goals of this panel are: 1) to extend the discourse within the Information Science field concerning the protection of human subjects in research; 2) to explore new ways to improve the relationship between researchers and Institutional Review Boards; and 3) to advance current Institutional Review Board policies and procedures concerning the use of iterative, culturally appropriate, qualitative methods within social science research. This panel will stimulate conversations through which "IRBs and investigators accept their common charge to meet the needs of subjects and to improve the quality of research." (Burke, 2005, p.

Institutional Review Boards and Public Justification

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

Ethics committees like Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees are typically empowered to approve or reject proposed studies, typically conditional on certain conditions or revisions being met. While some have argued this power should be primarily a function of applying clear, codified requirements, most institutions and legal regimes allow discretion for IRBs to ethically evaluate studies, such as to ensure a favourable risk-benefit ratio, fair subject selection, adequate informed consent, and so forth. As a result, ethics committees typically make moral demands on researchers: require them to act in a way the committee considers ethically right or appropriate. This paper argues that moral demands are legitimate only if publicly justifiable; and as a result, committee decisions are subject to a public justification requirement. Ethics committees can permissibly request for more information, changes to the research protocol or that the research is delayed or even stopped only if these demands are publicly justifiable. This latter claim is in turn justified on the basis that moral demands to φ are permissible only if we are in a position to know that the addressee ought to φ and that we are in a position to know a proposition only if it is publicly justifiable. This argument suggests that ethics committees must consciously and explicitly appeal to public reasons in their decision-making. In cases where public reasons cannot be offered, committees would not be permitted to reject a given study or make approval conditional on an amendment.

Improving the process of research ethics review

Research Integrity and Peer Review

Background: Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met. Main body: Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities. Conclusion: Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process.