Written work: The social functions of Research Ethics Committee letters

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 65, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 792-802

  Dixon Woods, Mary ^a   Angell, Emma ^a   Ashcroft, Richard E ^b   Bryman, Alan ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ethical dilemmas; Organisations; Qualitative; Research Ethics Committees; UK

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK; RESEARCH WORK; SOCIAL STATUS;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; RESEARCH ETHICS; SOCIAL ASPECT; UNITED KINGDOM;

CORRESPONDENCE; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; SOCIAL CHANGE;

EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 34447537800     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.046     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Ahmed A.H., and Nicholson K.G. Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 22 5 (1996) 263-266
2. Altheide D.L. Qualitative media analysis (1996), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
3. Altheide D.L. Ethnographic content analysis. In: Lewis Beck M.S., Bryman A., and Liao T.F. (Eds). The Sage enclycopaedia of social science research methods (2004), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
4. Angell E., Sutton A.J., Windridge K., and Dixon-Woods M. Consistency in decision-making by research ethics committees: A controlled comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 11 (2006) 662-664
5. Angell, E. L., Jackson, C. J., Ashcroft, R. E., Bryman, A., Windridge, K., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2007). Is "inconsistency" in research ethics committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection. Clinical Ethics, 2(2), in press.
6. Billig M., Condor S., Edwards D., Gane M., Middleton D., and Radley A. Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking (1988), Sage, London
7. Bloomberg News (2006). (David Evans) Parexel misled subjects sickened in London study, ethicists say. 22 April 2006. 〈http://www.bloomberg.co.uk/apps/news?pid=20601186&refer=special_report&sid=aG3sg1rIkL4U〉 Accessed 25.09.06.
8. Bourdieu P., and Wacquant L. An invitation to reflexive sociology (1992), Chicago University Press, Chicago
9. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Standard operating procedures for research ethics committees. Version 3.1 (2005), National Patient Safety Agency, London
10. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (2006). Differentiating audit, service evaluation and research. 〈http://www.corec.org.uk/recs/guidance/docs/Is_and_As_Differentiating_Research.pdf〉 Accessed 24.01.06.
11. Czarniawska B. Karl Weick: Concepts, style and reflection. Sociological Review 53 S1 (2005) S267-S278
12. Department of Health. Governance arrangements for research ethics committees (GAfREC) (2001), Department of Health, London
13. Department of Health. Research governance framework for health and social care. 2nd ed (2005), Department of Health, London
14. Department of Health. Report of the ad hoc advisory group on the operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees (2005), Department of Health, London
15. Edwards S.J.L., Ashcroft R.E., and Kirchin S. Research ethics committees: Differences and moral judgement. Bioethics 18 (2004) 408-427
16. Edwards S.J.L., Stone T., and Swift T. Differences between research ethics committees. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 23 1 (2007) 17-23
17. Fish S. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretative communities (1980), Harvard University Press, London
18. Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life (1959), Doubleday, New York
19. Goffman E. Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates (1961), Anchor, Garden City, NY
20. Hammersley M. Are ethics committees ethical?. Qualitative Researcher 2 (2006) 4-8
21. Hannigan B., and Allen D. A tale of two studies: Research governance issues arising from two ethnographic investigations into the organisation of health and social care. International Journal of Nursing Studies 40 7 (2003) 685-695
22. Harries U.J., Fentem P.H., Tuxworth W., and Hoinville G.W. Local research ethics committees. Widely differing responses to a national survey protocol. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 28 2 (1994) 150-154
23. Holsti O.R. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities (1969), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
24. Lincoln Y.S., and Tierney W.G. Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2004) 219-234
25. Lux A.L., Edwards S.W., and Osborne J.P. Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee. BMJ 320 (2000) 1182-1183
26. Mashaw J.L. Bureaucratic justice: Managing social security disability claims (1983), Yale University Press, New Haven
27. Meade T.W. The trouble with ethics committees. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 28 2 (1994) 102-104
28. Prior L. Using documents in social research (2002), Sage, London
29. Redshaw M.E., Harris A., and Baum J.D. Research ethics committee audit: Differences between committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 22 2 (1996) 78-82
30. Starr P. The social transformation of American medicine (1982), Basic Books, New York
31. Tilly C. Why? (2006), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
32. Van den Hoonaard W. Is research ethics review a moral panic?. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 38 (2001) 19-36
33. Watling M.I.L., and Dewhurst J.K. Current experience of central versus local ethics approval in multicenter studies. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 27 4 (1993) 399-402
34. Weick K.E. The social psychology of organizing (1969), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA