Ethical review from the inside: Repertoires of evaluation in Research Ethics Committee meetings

Sociology of Health and Illness

Volumn 34, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1039-1052

  De Jong, Jean Philippe ^a   van Zwieten, Myra C B ^a   Willems, Dick L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ethical review; Ethnography; Research ethics; Research ethics committee; The Netherlands

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ETHICS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARD;

ANTHROPOLOGY, CULTURAL; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP; CONGRESSES AS TOPIC; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FORMS AND RECORDS CONTROL; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84864594211     PISSN: 01419889     EISSN: 14679566     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01458.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. 18th World Medical Association General Assembly (1964) Declaration of Helsinki; Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
2. Abbott, L. and Grady, C. (2011) A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6, 1, 3-20.
3. Angell, E. and Dixon-Woods, M. (2009) Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 130-2.
4. Angell, E., Sutton, A.J., Windridge, K. and Dixon-Woods, M. (2006) Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison, Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 662-4.
5. Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2000) The reality of moral expectations: a sociology of situated judgement, Philosophical Explorations, 3, 3, 208-231.
6. Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2006) On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7. Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek (2009) Toetsing en Toezicht in de Toekomst. Den Haag.
8. Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek (2010) Jaarverslag 2009; Onderzoek met Proefpersonen, 2005-2009. Den Haag.
9. Coleman, C.H. and Bouesseau, M.C. (2008) How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review, BMC Medical Ethics, 9, 6.
10. De Jong, J.P., Ter Riet, R.G. and Willems, D.L. (2010) Two prognostic indicators of the publication rate of clinical studies were available during ethical review, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 12, 1342-50.
11. Department of Health and Human Services (1998) Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Washington: DHHS.
12. Dixon-Woods, M., Angell, E., Ashcroft, R.E. and Bryman, A. (2007) Written work: the social functions of Research Ethics Committee letters, Social Science & Medicine, 65, 4, 792-802.
13. Dixon-Woods, M. and Angell, E.L. (2009) Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 6, 377-81.
14. Edwards, S.J., Stone, T. and Swift, T. (2007) Differences between research ethics committees, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 23, 1, 17-23.
15. Feldman, J.A. and Rebholz, C.M. (2009) Anonymous self-evaluation of performance by ethics board members: a pilot study, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4, 1, 63-9.
16. Fitzgerald, M.H., Phillips, P.A. and Yule, E. (2006) The research ethics review process and ethics review narratives, Ethics & Behavior, 16, 4, 377-95.
17. Fost, N. and Levine, R.J. (2007) The dysregulation of human subjects research, Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 18, 2196-8.
18. Grady, C. (2010) Do IRBs protect human research subjects? Journal of the American Medical Association, 304, 10, 1122-3.
19. Hedgecoe, A. (2008) Research ethics review and the sociological research relationship, Sociology, 42, 5, 873-86.
20. Koski, G. (2003) Beyond compliance ... is it too much to ask? Institutional Review Board, 25, 5, 5-6.
21. Moreira, T. (2005) Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation, Social Science & Medicine, 60, 9, 1975-85.
22. O'Reilly, M., Dixon-Woods, M., Angell, E., Ashcroft, R., et al. (2009) Doing accountability: a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters, Sociology of Health and Illness, 31, 2, 246-61.
23. Parker, D.B., James, M. and Barrett, R.J. (2005) The practical logic of reasonableness: an ethnographic reconnaissance of a research ethics committee, Monash Bioethics Review, 24, 1, 7-27.
24. Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.
25. Redshaw, M.E., Harris, A. and Baum, J.D. (1996) Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees, Journal of Medical Ethics, 22, 78-82.
26. Saunders, J. (2002) Research ethics committees - time for change? Clinical Medicine, 2, 6, 534-8.
27. Savulescu, J. (2002) Two deaths and two lessons: is it time to review the structure and function of research ethics committees? Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 1, 1-2.
28. Shalala, D. (2000) Protecting research subjects - what must be done, New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 11, 808-10.
29. Steinbrook, R. (2002) Improving protection for research subjects, New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 18, 1425-30.
30. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
31. Taylor, H.A. (2007) Moving beyond compliance: measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research, Institutional Review Board, 29, 1, 9-14.