The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences
Disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 21787487 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Jessica Carniel (0000-0001-7462-0972, University of Southern Queensland, autor de correspondencia), A Hickey (0000-0002-9862-6444, University of Southern Queensland), Kim Southey (0000-0002-6852-1529, University of Southern Queensland), Sherree D Halliwell (0000-0002-1307-1794, University of Southern Queensland), Annette Brömdal (University of Southern Queensland), Lynda Crowley-Cyr (0000-0002-9954-9540, University of Southern Queensland), Douglas Eacersall (0000-0002-2674-1240, University of Southern Queensland), Will Farmer (University of Southern Queensland), Richard Gehrmann (0000-0003-0287-5532, University of Southern Queensland), Tanya Machin (0000-0002-4358-2149, University of Southern Queensland), Yosheen Pillay (0000-0002-5428-952X, University of Southern Queensland) |
| Año | 2023 |
| Volumen | 19 |
| Número | 2 |
| Páginas | 139-156 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2023-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 1747-0161 • E-ISSN: 2047-6094 |
| Editorial | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/17470161221147202 |
| OpenAlex | W4312217975 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 14 |
| Referencias citadas | 39 |
Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) find these processes to be misaligned, if not outrightly obstructive to their research. This leads some scholars to advocate against HASS participation in institutional review processes as they currently stand, or in their entirety. While ethics review processes can present a challenge to HASS researchers, these are not insurmountable and, in fact, present opportunities for ethics review boards (ERBs) to mediate their practices to better attend to the concerns of the HASS disciplines. By highlighting the potential value of the ethics review process in recognising the nuances and specificity across different forms of research, this article explores the generative possibilities of greater collaboration between HASS researchers and ERBs. Remaining cognisant of the epistemic and methodological differences that mark different disciplinary formations in turn will benefit the ethical conduct of all researchers
Discipline · Engineering ethics · Research ethics · Social science · Sociology · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · Engineering · Ethics in Clinical Research · Ethics in medical practice
The geographies of ethics in Digital Humanities research
Re-anchoring the far right
Clarifying our policy on requiring ethics approval in submitted manuscripts
Ethical research in the German social sciences
Factors shaping the ethics review of research on humans at the intersection of biomedical and non-biomedical sciences in Brazil—looking ahead to next challenges
Teaching Ethics in Teacher Education
Bureaucratizing Ethics
Knowledge needs of research ethics committees for the integration of ethics in research and technology development
REC review of deceptive studies
Improving the Ethics Review of Qualitative Health Research
Governance in Social Research
The research politics of (re)naming participants
Research Ethics in Qualitative Health Research
Research ethics and the study of armed actors
Research Ethics for Social Scientists
The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research
Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education
Foucault and Political Reason
A Short History of Ethics
The Neoliberal University as a Space to Learn/Think/Work in Higher Education
Sex Work Research, Ethics Review Processes, and Institutional Challenges for “Sensitive” Collaborative Research
Are Research Ethics Committees Prepared for Community-Based Participatory Research
Ethics Review Boards for Research With Human Participants
Secrecy, coercion and deception in research on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’
Too dangerous for fieldwork? The challenge of institutional risk-management in primary research on conflict, violence and ‘Terrorism’
Beyond Criticism of Ethics Review Boards
The Importance of Ethical Appraisal in Social Science Research
Getting Beyond Form Filling
If Ethics Committees were Designed for Ethnography
Against the ethicists
Multidisciplinary research ethics review
Reputational Risk, Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Review
Ethics review, neoliberal governmentality and the activation of moral subjects’
Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy
The role of research ethics committees
The amoral academy? A critical discussion of research ethics in the neo-liberal university
The neoliberal cascade and education
Pigeonholed, peripheral or pioneering? Findings from a national study of Indigenous Australian academics in the disciplines
The science of ethics
Neoliberalism and the Crisis in Higher Education
Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production
The Conceptual Practices of Power
The New Bureaucracies of Virtue or When Form Fails to Follow Function
Research ethics committees, ethnographers and imaginations of risk
Why don't you get somebody new to do it?' Race and cultural taxation in the academy
| Obras citantes distintas | 14 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 4,67 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Velocidad de citación | current |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 14 |