Ethical Approval and Being a Virtuous Social Work Researcher. The Experience of Multi-site Research in UK Health and Social Care
An Approved Mental Health Professional Case Study
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12901844 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kevin Stone (0000-0001-9842-7755, University of the West of England, corresponding author), Sarah Vicary (0000-0001-9070-2695, The Open University), Charlotte Scott (0000-0003-1770-2546, University of Leeds), Rosie Buckland (0000-0001-6724-5641, University of Bath) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 156-171 |
| Publication date | 2019-12-13 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Ethics and Social Welfare (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1749-6535 • E-ISSN: 1749-6543 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/17496535.2019.1694694 |
| OpenAlex | W2994669651 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 16 |
Seeking ethical approval and conducting research in an ethical manner are necessary components of research with human participants. Using the experiences of four individual studies undertaken separately into the same role, that of the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP), this article critically examines the challenges for multi-site research in health and social care settings. Issues arising are discussed: these are systemic and procedural, or barriers encountered using the integrated approach of the National Research Ethics Service. We discuss the lessons learned and argue that seeking ethical approval in multi-site research is currently a static construct involving the satisfying of what are in effect closed systemic and procedural requirements. We suggest that being a virtuous social work researcher, which we explore in the context of contemporary debates in social sciences, should instead afford open-ended integrity whereby the ‘permission’ granted is constantly revisited by the researcher or, in other words, that the integrated approach should allow being a virtuous researcher. We suggest that this cyclical activity has particular resonance for those researchers who are, simultaneously, health and social care practitioners. The article adds to the literature on ethics, conduct and integrity in health and social care
Construct (python library · Context (archaeology · Engineering ethics · Health care · Mental health · Political science · Psychiatry · Public relations · Research ethics · Sociology · Engineering · Law · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Nursing · Psychology · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics · Social Work Education and Practice · Social Work
Gender-based emergency response and crisis management knowledge assessment
Navigating Research Governance and Ethics Processes for Adult Social Care Research
What Does the ‘A’ Stand for? Exploring the Process of AMHP ‘Re-Approval’ and Opportunities for Improvement
Learning to Become a More Ethically Focused Practitioner Researcher
Mental health, burnout and job satisfaction among mental health social workers in England and Wales
Approved Mental Health Professionals and Detention
Staff shortages in the mental health workforce
The impact of 'statutory duties' on mental health social workers in the UK
Research as Social Work
A Code of Ethics for Social Work and Social Care Research
Practitioner Research
Does the Glove Really Fit? Qualitative Research and Clinical Social Work Practice
The Mental Health Act Code of Practice
Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice
The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics
Creeping Ethical Regulation and the Strangling of Research
Predatory vs. Dialogic Ethics
Ethics, Reflexivity, and "Ethically Important Moments" in Research
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |