Ethical review of interpretive research: Problems and solutions

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1-8

  Jacobson, Nora ^a,b   Gewurtz, Rebecca ^b,c   Haydon, Emma ^b,d  

^a CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; SOCIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOCIAL SCIENCES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 35348837165     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (130)

1. American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Protecting Human Beings: Institutional Review Boards and Social Science Research. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors, 2000;
2. Wax ML. On fieldwork and those exposed to fieldwork: Federal regulations and moral issues. Human Organization 1977;36(6):321-328.
3. See ref. 1, AAUP 1000;
4. van den Hoonaard WC, ed. Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press Inc., 2002;
5. Bosk CL, De Vries RG. Bureaucracies of mass deception: Institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 20045595:249-263;
6. Haggerty KD. Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 2004;27(4):391-414;
7. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (SSHRESWC). Giving a Voice to the Spectrum: Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Working Committee. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics, 2004;
8. Lincoln YS, Tierney WG. Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry 2004;10(2):219-234;
9. Tolich M, Fitzgerald MH. If ethics committees were designed for ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2006;1(2)71-78.
10. van den Hoonaard WC. Towards a more inclusive and interdisciplinary researchethics code: Reform and developments in Canada. Paper presented at the Internet, Processing, Systems, and Interdisciplinary (Research) Conference, 2005, Carcasonne, France;
11. Brydon-Miller M, Greenwood D, A reexamination of the relationship between action research and human subjects review processes. Action Research 2006;4(1):117-128.
12. See ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
13. See ref. 2, SSHRESWC 2004;
14. Shea C. Don't talk to the humans: The crackdown on social science research. Lingua Franca 2000;10(6):27-33.
15. Bosk C. The ethnographer and the IRB. Comment on Haggerty K. Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 2004:27(4): 417-420, p. 417.
16. Oakes MJ. Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator's guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review 2002;26(5):443-479.
17. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979.
18. Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR 46.
19. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. 1998 (with 2000, 2002, and 2005 amendments), http:// www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/ policystatement.cfm.
20. See ref. 2, van den Hoonaard 2002;
21. See ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
22. See ref. 6, Oakes 2002.
23. See ref. 1, Wax 1977;
24. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004;
25. Adler PA, Adler P. Do university lawyers and the policy define research values? In: van den Hoonaard WC. Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1001, p. 34-42;
26. Barnes JA. Who Should Know What? Social Science, Privacy and Ethics. Middlesex, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1979;
27. Milne C. Overseeing research: Ethics and the institutional review board. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2005;6(1): Art. 41. http://www.qualitative-research.net/pqs-texte/1-05/05-1-41-e.htm.
28. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994, p. 105-117.
29. See ref. 12, Guba and Lincoln 1994.
30. Spencer L, Richie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence, London, U.K.: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office, 2003.
31. See ref. 11, Barnes 1979.
32. Maiter S, Simich L, Jacobson N, Wise J. Reciprocity: An ethic for participatory action research with culturally diverse communities. Action Research, forthcoming.
33. See ref. 2, van den Hoonaard 2002;
34. See ref. 2, Bosk and De Vries 2004;
35. Cribb A. Approaching qualitative research. In: Eckstein S, ed. Manual for Research Ethics Ecommittees. 6th ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003;
36. Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, et al. eds. Ethics in Qualitative Research. London, U.K.: Sage Publications, 1991.
37. See, for example, American Anthropological Association. Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association. June 1998. www.aaanet.org/committees/ ethics/ethicscode.pdf;
38. Association of Social Anthropologists of the U.K. and the Commonwealth. Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice, http://www.theasa.org/ ethics/ethics_guidelines.htm;
39. International Sociological Association. Code of Ethics. 2001, www.ucm.es/info/isa/about/isa_code_ of_ethics.htm.
40. For example, Patron MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002;
41. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.
42. Ramcharan P, Cutcliffe JR. Judging the ethics of qualitative research: Considering the "ethics as process" model. Health and Social Care in the Community 200159(6):3 58-366.
43. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004;
44. See ref. 11, Adler and Adler 2002.
45. See ref. 11, Milne 2005;
46. Pearce M. Challenging the system: Rethinking ethics review of social research in Britain's National Health Service. In: van den Hoonaard WC, Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2002, p. 43-58.
47. See ref. 2, Lincoln and Tierney 2004;
48. See ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
49. See ref. 2, SSHRESWC 2004;
50. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004;
51. See ref. 2, Bosk and De Vries 2004.
52. See ref. 1, Wax 1977;
53. Gallant DR, Bliss A. Qualitative social science research. In: Bankert EA, Amdur RJ, Institutional Review Board: Management and Function, 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2006, p. 397-409;
54. Corbin J, Morse JM. The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry 2004:9(3): 335-354.
55. See ref. 9, TCPS.
56. See ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
57. See ref. 6, Oakes 2002;
58. See ref. 24, Corbin and Morse 2004.
59. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004;
60. See ref. 11, Milne 2005.
61. See ref. 2, Lincoln and Tierney 2004;
62. See ref. 24, Corbin and Morse 2004.
63. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004.
64. See ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
65. See ref. 24, Corbin and Morse 2004.
66. See ref. 11, Adler and Adler 2002.
67. See ref. 2, Lincoln and Tierney 2004;
68. See ref. 11, Adler and Adler 2002.
69. See ref. 2, SSHRESWC 2004;
70. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004;
71. van den Hoonaard WC. Ethical norming and qualitative research. In: van den Hoonaard WC, ed. Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2001, p. 3-16.
72. See ref. 2, SSHRESWC 2004;
73. See ref. 20, Ramcharan and Cutcliffe 2001;
74. Munhall PL. Institutional review of qualitative research proposals: A task of no small consequence. In: Morse JM, ed. Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991, p. 258-271.
75. See ref. 2, SSHRESWC 2004, p. 30.
76. See ref. 2, SSHRESWC 2004;
77. Tolich M. Internal confidentiality: When confidentiality assurances fail relational informants. Qualitative Sociology 2004;27(1):101-106.
78. See ref. 33, van den Hoonaard 2002, p. 5.
79. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004.
80. See ref, 1, AAUP 2000;
81. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004.
82. See ref. 2, Lincoln and Tierney 2004;
83. See ref. 24, Corbin and Morse 2004.
84. See ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
85. See ref, 6, Oakes 2002;
86. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004;
87. See ref. 11, Milne 2005.
88. MacDonald M. Canadian governance of health research involving human subjects: Is anyone minding the store? Health Law Journal 2001;9:1-21.
89. See ref. 2, Lincoln and Tierney 2004;
90. see ref, 2, Bosk and De Vries 2004;
91. see ref. 22, Pearce 2002.
92. See ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
93. see ref. 2, Lincoln and Tierney 2004;
94. see ref. 11, Adler and Adler, 2002;
95. see ref. 2, Haggerty 2004.
96. Greenhalgh T, The new ethics. BMJ 2004;13(328):651;
97. See ref. 2, Haggerty 2004;
98. Edwards R, Mauthner M. Ethics and feminist research: Theory and practice, In: Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, Miller T, eds. Ethics in Qualitative Research. London, U.K.: Sage Publications; 2002.
99. See ref. 2, Lincoln and Tierney 2004;
100. see ref. 2, Haggerty 2004;
101. see ref. 24, Corbin and Morse 2004.
102. See ref. 2, Bosk and De Vries 2004.
103. See ref. 4, Shea 2000.
104. See ref. 2, Bosk and De Vries 2004;
105. see ref. 45, Edwards and Mauthner 2002.
106. Fitzgerald's work can be accessed at www.ethicsproject.com.
107. See ref. 42, MacDonald 2001.
108. See ref. 20, Ramcharan and Cutcliffe 2001, p. 3 62.
109. See ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
110. see ref. 2, Lincoln and Tierney 2004;
111. see ref. 6, Oakes 2002;
112. see ref. 2, Bosk and De Vries 2004.
113. See ref. 17, Cribb 2003;
114. see ref. 24, Gallant and Bliss 2006;
115. Parrott ES. Ethnographic research. In: Bankert EA, Amdur RJ. Institutional Review Board: Management and Function, 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 200e. p. 402-409.
116. See ref. 22, Pearce 2002.
117. See ref. 2, Tolich and Fitzgerald 200e;
118. see ref. 1, AAUP 2000;
119. see ref. 2, SSHRESWC 2004;
120. see ref, 6, Oakes 2002;
121. see ref. 2, Bosk and De Vries 2004;
122. see ref. 33, van den Hoonaard 2002.
123. See ref. 42, MacDonald 2001.
124. See ref. 2, Bosk and De Vries 2004;
125. see ref. 33, van den Hoonaard 2002.
126. See ref. 1, Wax 1977.
127. Amdur RJ, Bankert EA. Social science versus biomedical institutional review boards. In: Bankert EA, Amdur RJ. Institutional Review Board: Management and Function, 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2006, p.401-409.
128. Mitchell T, Fletcher I. Stating the case for nursing research ethics committees: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today 1998;18:133-137.
129. Tolich and Fitzgerald suggest that ethics review of interpretive research be structured by the following four questions: What is the research project about? What ethical issues does the researcher believe are raised by this project? How does the researcher plan to address these ethical problems? What contingencies are in place if the research project changes its focus after the research has been approved and has begun? See ref. 2, Tolich and Fitzgerald 200a.
130. See ref. 9, TCPS, p. i.9.