Protecting vulnerable research participants: A foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees

Nursing Ethics

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 640-650

  Juritzen, Truls I ^a   Grimen, Harald ^b   Heggen, Kristin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

academic freedom; ethics committees; Foucault; power; research ethics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT;

ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; POWER (PSYCHOLOGY); RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 80052341708     PISSN: 09697330     EISSN: 14770989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0969733011403807     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Lynn MR and Nelson DK Common (mis)perceptions about IRB review of human subjects research. Nurs Sci Q 2005; 18: 264-70.
2. Schüklenk U. and Ashcroft R. International research ethics. Bioethics 2000; 14: 158-72.
3. Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1436-40.
4. Pressel DM Nuremberg and Tuskegee: lessons for contemporary American medicine. J Natl Med Assoc 2003; 95: 1216-25.
5. Foucault M. Madness and civilization: a history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Vintage Books, Random House, Inc., 1988.
6. Foucault M. Dicipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books, Random House, Inc., 1995.
7. Foucault M. Power/knowledge: selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.
8. Foucault M. The history of sexuality: an introduction. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Books, Random House, Inc., 1990.
9. Gros F (ed.). Michel Foucault: the hermeneutics of the subject lectures at the College de France 1981-82. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
10. Hem MH, Heggen K. and Ruyter KW Questionable requirement for consent in observational research in psychiatry. Nurs Ethics 2007; 14: 41-53.
11. Corrigan O. Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health & Illness 2003; 25: 768-92.
12. Dewing J. Participatory research: a method for process consent with persons who have dementia. Dementia 2007; 6: 11-25.
13. Murphy E. and Dingwall R. Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine 2007; 65: 2223-34.
14. Boden R., Epstein D. and Latimer J. Accounting for ethos or programmes for conduct? The brave new world of research ethics committees. Sociol Rev 2009; 57: 727-49.
15. Boulton M. and Parker M. Informed consent in a changing environment. Social Science & Medicine 2007; 65: 2187-98.
16. Haggerty KD Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 2004; 27: 391-414.
17. Hammersley M. Against the ethicists: on the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2009; 12: 211-25.
18. Koro-Ljungberg M., Gemignani M., Brodeur CW and Kmiec C. The technologies of normalization and self: thinking about IRBs and extrinsic research ethics with Foucault. Qualitative Inquiry 2007; 13: 1075-94.
19. Halse C. and Honey A. Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse. Qualitative Inquiry 2007; 13: 336-52.
20. Allen L. 'Caught in the act': ethics committee review and researching the sexual culture of schools. Qualitative Research 2009; 9: 395-410.
21. Lewis M. New strategies of control: academic freedom and research ethics boards. Qualitative Inquiry 2008; 14: 684-99.
22. Gunsalus CK, Bruner EM, Burbules NC,et al.The Illinois White Paper - Improving the system for protecting human subjects: counteracting IRB 'mission creep'. Qualitative Inquiry 2007; 13: 617-49.
23. Cheek J. The practice and politics of funded qualitative research. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2005, p.387-409.
24. Boser S. Power, ethics, and the IRB: dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry 2007; 13: 1060-74.
25. Lincoln YS and Cannella GS Dangerous discourses: methodological conservatism and governmental regimes of truth. Qualitative Inquiry 2004; 10: 5-14.
26. Shaw SE, Petchey RP, Chapman J. and Abbott S. A double-edged sword? Health research and research governance in UK primary care. Social Science & Medicine 2009; 68: 912-8.
27. Tilley S. and Gormley L. Canadian University ethics review: cultural complications translating principles into practice. Qualitative Inquiry 2007; 13: 368-87.
28. Tierney WG and Blumberg Corwin Z. The tensions between academic freedom and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry 2007; 13: 388-98.
29. Lincoln YS and Tierney WG Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry 2004; 10: 219-34.
30. Penn R. and Soothill K. Ethical issues in social inquiry: the enemy within? Qualitative Researcher 2007; 6: 4-7.
31. Holland K. The epistemological bias of ethics review: constraining mental health research. Qualitative Inquiry 2007; 13: 895-913.
32. Denzin NK The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research 2009; 9: 139-60.