The Impact of “Ethics Creep” on Research, Teaching and Learning in the Social Sciences and Humanities
A Survey of Canadian Researchers’ Experience with Research Ethics Boards
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12926245 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kelly Gallagher‐mackay (0000-0002-9338-3631, Wilfrid Laurier University, corresponding author), Karen Robson (0000-0002-1041-1546, McMaster University), Karen L Robson (McMaster University Ontario Canada), Alexandra Pulchny (0009-0006-6731-5092, St. Thomas University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 63 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | e70034-e70034 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-06 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1755-6171 • E-ISSN: 1755-618X |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/cars.70034 |
| PMID | 41940607 |
| OpenAlex | W7151076826 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 49 |
Designed to protect the dignity of research subjects, there is limited data on either the effectiveness of Research Ethics Boards or on the scope of the unintended effects of REB processes on core university functions of research, teaching and learning. This article shares results from an online survey on unintended effects, disseminated to postsecondary faculty and students in Social Sciences and Humanities across Canada (n = 620). Key findings include: 78% of respondents report REB processes deter them from undertaking research at all, including minimal risk research, and the prospect of REB review shapes research projects, particularly relating to equity or vulnerable populations. Seventy percent of faculty avoid assigning students research assignments with human subjects because of REB concerns, and 58% have advised graduate students to avoid research with primary data. The authors advocate for robust use of Tri-Council powers to develop feasible reforms to promote research and limit ethics creep
Dignity · Equity (law · Graduate students · Postgraduate research · Research ethics · Scope (computer science · Unintended consequences · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Ethics in Business and Education · Ethics in Clinical Research
Research as More Than Extraction
Seduction of Ethics
The Birth of Bioethics
Research Ethics for Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage
Comment on Kevin D. Haggerty, “Ethics Creep
Systemic disruptions
Are We Asking the Right Questions? A Review of Canadian REB Practices in Relation to Community-Based Participatory Research
Online Survey Tools
The Real-Time IRB
Relationships between Community-Based Processes for Research Ethics Review and Institution-Based IRBs
Facilitating Timely Institutional Review Board Review
A New Era of Indigenous Research
Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research
The Tensions Between Academic Freedom and Institutional Review Boards
Conducting Research with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations
Community-Based Participatory Research, Ethics, and Institutional Review Boards
The Tunnel at the End of the Light? A Critical Analysis of the Development of the Tri-Council Policy Statement
Great Ethical Divides
What’s the Harm? The Coverage of Ethics and Harm Avoidance in Research Methods Textbooks
"What Do They Really Mean by Partnerships?" Questioning the Unquestionable Good in Ethics Guidelines Promoting Community Engagement in Indigenous Health Research
Ethics Creep
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |