Beyond Criticism of Ethics Review Boards: Strategies for Engaging Research Communities and Enhancing Ethical Review Processes

被引:10
|
作者
Hickey, Andrew [1 ]
Davis, Samantha [1 ]
Farmer, Will [1 ]
Dawidowicz, Julianna [1 ]
Moloney, Clint [1 ]
Lamont-Mills, Andrea [1 ]
Carniel, Jess [1 ]
Pillay, Yosheen [1 ]
Akenson, David [1 ]
Bromdal, Annette [1 ]
Gehrmann, Richard [1 ]
Mills, Dean [1 ]
Kolbe-Alexander, Tracy [1 ]
Machin, Tanya [1 ]
Reich, Suzanne [1 ]
Southey, Kim [1 ]
Crowley-Cyr, Lynda [1 ]
Watanabe, Taiji [1 ]
Davenport, Josh [1 ]
Hirani, Rohit [1 ]
King, Helena [1 ]
Perera, Roshini [1 ]
Williams, Lucy [1 ]
Timmins, Kurt [1 ]
Thompson, Michael [1 ]
Eacersall, Douglas [1 ]
Maxwell, Jacinta [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Southern Queensland, Human Res Eth Comm, Toowoomba, Qld, Australia
关键词
Research ethics; Ethical review; Deliberative communication; Communicative action; Strong public; ACADEMIC-FREEDOM; COMMITTEES; TUSKEGEE;
D O I
10.1007/s10805-021-09430-4
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes used to determine the ethical merit of research. Citing criticism on the bureaucratic nature of ethics review processes, this literature provides a useful provocation for (re)considering how the ethics review might be enacted. Much of this criticism focuses on how ethics review boards deliberate, with particular attention given to the lack of transparency and opportunities for researcher recourse that characterise ethics review processes. Centered specifically on the conduct of ethics review boards convened within university settings, this paper draws on these inherent criticisms to consider the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative and deliberative practices. Outlining a set of principles against which ethics review boards might establish strategies for engaging with researchers and research communities, this paper draws attention to how Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility for the ethics review might be enacted in the day-to-day practice of the university human ethics review board. This paper develops these themes via a conceptual lens derived from Habermas' (The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society, 1984) articulation of 'communicative action' and Fraser's (Social Text, 25(26), 56-80, 1990) consideration of 'strong publics' to cast consideration of the role that human ethics review boards might play in supporting university research cultures. Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility provide useful conceptual prompts for considering how ethics review boards might undertake their work.
引用
收藏
页码:549 / 567
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Best Practice Principles on Engaging Underserved Communities in Health Research: Review of the Literature
    Park, So
    Mills, Susan
    Cui, Adeline
    Au, Daisy
    Clark, Nancy
    Davis, Connie
    Flores, Guillermina
    Fong, Maylene
    Hamilton, Clayon
    Holms, Shannon
    Koehn, Cheryl
    Koehn, Sharon
    Lacaille, Diane
    JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2018, 45 (07) : 1023 - 1023
  • [32] Improving the Efficiency of African Research Ethics Committees and Standardizing Ethics Review Processes - Through an Automated Review Platform
    Mokgatla, Boitumelo
    Bahati, Prince
    Ijsselmuiden, Carel
    AIDS RESEARCH AND HUMAN RETROVIRUSES, 2016, 32 : 73 - 73
  • [33] Ethical guidelines for research with children: a review of current research ethics documentation in New Zealand
    Powell, Mary Ann
    Smith, Anne B.
    KOTUITUI-NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES ONLINE, 2006, 1 (02): : 125 - 138
  • [34] Ethical research, academic freedom and the role of ethics committees and review procedures in educational research
    Sikes, Pat
    Piper, Heather
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION, 2010, 33 (03) : 205 - 213
  • [35] Ethical Dilemmas in Community-Based Participatory Research: Recommendations for Institutional Review Boards
    Sarah Flicker
    Robb Travers
    Adrian Guta
    Sean McDonald
    Aileen Meagher
    Journal of Urban Health, 2007, 84 : 478 - 493
  • [36] Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards
    Flicker, Sarah
    Travers, Robb
    Guta, Adrian
    McDonald, Sean
    Meagher, Aileen
    JOURNAL OF URBAN HEALTH-BULLETIN OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF MEDICINE, 2007, 84 (04): : 478 - 493
  • [37] Assessing contrasting strategies for ensuring ethical practice within evaluation: institutional review boards and professionalisation
    O'Flynn, Peter
    Barnett, Chris
    Camfield, Laura
    JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS, 2016, 8 (04) : 561 - 568
  • [38] Translational Research Beyond Approval: A Two-Stage Ethics Review
    Larkin, Gregory L.
    Hooker, Roderick S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2010, 10 (08): : 1 - 10
  • [39] E-recruitment based clinical research: notes for Research Ethics Committees/Institutional Review Boards
    Refolo, P.
    Sacchini, D.
    Minacori, R.
    Daloiso, V.
    Spagnolo, A. G.
    EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2015, 19 (05) : 800 - 804
  • [40] Research ethics aspects of experimentation with LSD on human subjects: a historical and ethical review
    Bodnar, Kristof Janos
    Kakuk, Peter
    MEDICINE HEALTH CARE AND PHILOSOPHY, 2019, 22 (02) : 327 - 337