Resisting the seduction of "ethics creep": Using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 98, Issue , 2013, Pages 301-310

  Guta, Adrian ^a   Nixon, Stephanie A ^a   Wilson, Michael G ^b,c,d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e ONTARIO HIV TREATMENT NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Discourse; Ethics creep; Ethics review; Foucault; Interviews; Neoliberalism

Indexed keywords

COMPLEXITY; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ETHICS; NEOLIBERALISM; RESEARCH; SOCIAL THEORY;

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH ETHICS;

CANADA;

CANADA; DISCOURSE; ETHICS CREEP; ETHICS REVIEW; FOUCAULT; INTERVIEWS; NEOLIBERALISM;

CANADA; COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY;

EID: 84890145779     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.019     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Allen G. Getting beyond form filling: the role of institutional governance in human research ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics 2008, 6:105-116.
2. Ashcroft R., Pfeffer N. Ethics behind closed doors: do research ethics committees need secrecy?. British Medical Journal 2001, 322:1294-1296.
3. Barry J., Chandler J., Clark H. Between the ivory tower and the academic assembly line. Journal of Management Studies 2001, 38:88-101.
4. Beauchamp T. The legacy and the future. 30 Years after the Belmont report, Beauchamp sets the record straight. Protection of Human Subjects 2004, 1-3.
5. Becker G.J. Human subjects investigation: timeless lessons of Nuremberg and Tuskegee. Journal of the American College of Radiology 2005, 2:215-217.
6. Blake M.K. Formality and friendship: research ethics review and participatory action research. ACME 2007, 6.
7. Boser S. Power, ethics, and the IRB: dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry 2007, 13:1060-1074.
8. Bosk C. The ethnographer and the IRB: comment on Kevin D. Haggerty, "ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics". Qualitative Sociology 2004, 27:417-420.
9. Bosk C. The new bureaucracies of virtue or when form fails to follow function. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 2007, 30:192-209.
10. Boyatzis R.E. Thematic analysis: Coding as a process for transforming qualitative information 1998, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
11. Boyatzis R.E. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development 1998, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
12. Bradley M. Silenced for their own protection: how the IRB marginalizes those it feigns to protect. ACME 2007, 6.
13. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006, 3:77-101.
14. Brenneis D., Shore C., Wright S. Getting the measure of academia: universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropology in Action 2005, 12:1-10.
15. Brivot M., Gendron Y. Seeing, showing off and being seen: On the ramifications of panoptical surveillance in contemporary society 2009, Social Science Research Network.
16. 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 December 2010, Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics on behalf of The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
17. Chadwick G.L. Historical perspective: Nuremberg, Tuskegee, and the radiation experiments. Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care 1997, 3:27-28.
18. Dean M. Governing the unemployed self in an active society. Economy and Society 1995, 24:559-583.
19. Dean M. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society 2010, SAGE, Los Angeles.
20. Devers K.J. How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Services Research 1999, 34:1153-1188.
21. De Wet K. The importance of ethical appraisal in social science research: reviewing a faculty of humanities' research ethics committee. Journal of Academic Ethics 2010, 8:301-314.
22. Dingwall R. The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences 2008, 3:1-12.
23. Dominelli L., Hoogvelt A. Globalization, contract government and the taylorization of intellectual labour in academia. Studies in Political Economy 1996, 49:77-100.
24. Dreyfus H.L., Rabinow P. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics 1982, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
25. Fereday J., Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development 2008.
26. Fine M. Bearing witness: methods for researching oppression and resistance: a textbook for critical research. Social Justice Research 2006, 19:83-108.
27. Fitzgerald M.H. Punctuated equilibrium, moral panics, and the ethics review process. Journal of Academic Ethics 2005.
28. Flicker S., Travers R., Guta A., Macdonald S., Meagher A. Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health 2007, 84:478-493.
29. Flicker S., Worthington C. Public health research involving Aboriginal peoples: research ethics board stakeholders' reflections on ethics principles and research processes. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2012, 103:19-22.
30. Foucault M. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1980, Random House of Canada, Toronto.
31. Foucault M. Ethics: Subjectivity and truth 1994, The New Press, USA. P. Rabinow (Ed.).
32. Foucault M. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison 1995, Vintage Books, New York.
33. Foucault M. "Society must be defended": Lectures at the College de France 1975-1976 2003, Picador, New York.
34. Frost N., Nolas S.M., Brooks-Gordon B., Esin C., Holt A., Mehdizadeh L., et al. Pluralism in qualitative research: the impact of different researchers and qualitative approaches on the analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative Research 2010, 10:441-460.
35. Giroux H.A. Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: the university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review 2002, 72:425-464.
36. Gold J.L., Dewa C.S. Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way?. Health Services Research 2005, 40:291-308. (217).
37. Grundy J., Smith M. Activist knowledges in queer politics. Economy and Society 2007, 36:294-317.
38. Guta A., Nixon S., Gahagan J., Fielden S. 'Walking along beside the researcher': how Canadian REB/IRBs are responding to the needs of community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2012, 7:15-25.
39. Guta A., Wilson M., Flicker S., Travers R., Mason C., Wenyeve G., et al. Are we asking the right questions? A review of Canadian REB practices in relation to community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2010, 5:35-46.
40. Haggerty K.D. Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 2004, 27:391-414.
41. Halse C., Honey A. Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse. Qualitative Inquiry 2007, 13:336-352.
42. Hamann T.,H. Neoliberalism, governmentality, and ethics. Foucault Studies 2009, 6:37-59.
43. Hammersley M. Creeping ethical regulation and the strangling of research. Sociological Research Online 2010, 15(4):16.
44. Hedgecoe A. Research ethics review and the sociological research relationship: reviews. Sociology 2008, 42:873-886.
45. Hoeyer K., Dahlager L., Lynoe N. Conflicting notions of research ethics. The mutually challenging traditions of social scientists and medical researchers. Social Science & Medicine 2005, 61:1741-1749.
46. Holland K. The epistemological bias of ethics review. Qualitative Inquiry 2007, 13:895-913.
47. van den Hoonaard W.C. Is research-ethics review a moral panic?. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie 2001, 38:19-36.
48. van den Hoonaard W.C. New angles and tangles in the ethics review of research. Journal of Academic Ethics 2006, 4:261-274.
49. van den Hoonaard W.C. The seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences 2011, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
50. Juritzen T.I., Grimen H., Heggen K. Protecting vulnerable research participants: a Foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees. Nursing Ethics 2011.
51. Kaufmann J. Poststructural analysis: analyzing empirical matter for new meanings. Qualitative Inquiry 2011, 17:148-154.
52. Lemke T. 'The birth of bio-politics': Michel Foucault's lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society 2001, 30:190-207.
53. Lidz C.W., Appelbaum P.S., Arnold R., Candilis P., Gardner W., Myers S., et al. How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule?. Academic Medicine 2012, 87:1-5.
54. Lincoln Y.S., Tierney W.S. Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry 2004, 10:219-234.
55. Macdonald M., Carnevale F. Qualitative health research and the IRB: answering the "so what?" with qualitative inquiry. Journal of Academic Ethics 2008, 6:1-5.
56. Menikoff J. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. New England Journal of Medicine 2010, 363:1591-1593.
57. Menzies H., Newson J. No time to think. Time & Society 2007, 16:83-98.
58. Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods 1984, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
59. Miller P., Rose N.S. Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life 2008, Polity, Cambridge.
60. Monaghan L.F., O'Dwyer M., Gabe J. Seeking university research ethics committee approval: the emotional vicissitudes of a 'rationalised' process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2012, 1-16.
61. Morley L. Quality and power in higher education 2003, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
62. Morse J.M. Ethics in action: ethical principles for doing qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research 2007, 17:1003-1005.
63. Munoz R., Fox M.D. Research impacting social contexts: the moral import of community-based participatory research. American Journal of Bioethics 2011, 11:37-38.
64. Murphy E., Dingwall R. Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine 2007, 65:2223-2234.
65. Critical interventions in the ethics of healthcare: Challenging the principle of autonomy in bioethics 2009, Ashgate Publishing. S.J. Murray, D. Holmes (Eds.).
66. Office of the Secretary The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research 1979, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Last retrieved on 15.11.05 from. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm.
67. O'Reilly M., Dixon-Woods M., Angell E., Ashcroft R., Bryman A. Doing accountability: a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters. Social Health Illness 2009, 31:246-261.
68. Owram D. Managing the ethical risks: universities and the new world of funding. Journal of Academic Ethics 2004, 2:173-186.
69. Patterson D. Research ethics boards as spaces of marginalization - a Canadian story. Qualitative Inquiry 2008, 14:18-27.
70. Pressel D.M. Nuremberg and Tuskegee: lessons for contemporary American medicine. JNatl Med Assoc 2003, 95:1216-1225.
71. Read J. Agenealogy of homo-economicus: neoliberalism and the production of subjectivity. Foucault Studies 2009, 6:22-36.
72. Schrag M.Z. Ethical imperialism: Institutional rev 2010.
73. Shore C. Audit culture and illiberal governance. Anthropological Theory 2008, 8:278-298.
74. Shore N. Re-conceptualizing the Belmont report: a community-based participatory research perspective. Journal of Community Practice 2006, 14:5-26.
75. Smith L.T. On tricky ground: researching the native in the age of uncertainty. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research 2005, xix. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, (1210 pp.). N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.).
76. Spike J. Putting the "ethics" into "research ethics". The American Journal of Bioethics 2005, 5:51-53.
77. Stake R.E. Case study Handbook of qualitative research 2000, (pp. 435-454), SAGE Publications, Ltd, Thousand Oaks.
78. Stark L. Victims in our own minds? IRBs in myth and practice. Law & Society Review 2007, 41:777-786.
79. Ylijoki O.-H. Academic nostalgia: a narrative approach to academic work. Human Relations 2005, 58:555-576.