Source: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/3024/4253
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:39:09+00:00

Document:
Abstract: The medical model of research ethics codes operates from a privileged perspective. The reaction of social researchers spans the broad spectrum, from deference to rebellion. In this contribution, I explore an approach that would yield a move away from adversarial relationships that have come to characterize the discourse between the upholders of the medically framed research ethics codes and those who see no relevance in those codes in terms of their own research. The path away from this adversarial approach is to maintain the institutionalized ethics codes for medical research, but to insist that researchers in the social sciences use their own well-established disciplinary codes for conducting ethical research. Once we have moved away from this adversarial relationship, researchers in the social sciences will have no need to "other" themselves in research ethics review; they can now own their own ethics in research. These views represent my autobiographical reflections from my position as a founding-member of Canada's Panel on Research Ethics as a qualitative sociologist with extensive experience who has participated in the debate since 2001.
5. Are Medical Ethics Codes Inhospitable to Social-Science Research?
Embedded in the armadillo's shell are "protocol" and "subjects."10) These terms do not typically define the work of social science researchers. No doubt, there is some research that employs these positivist terms, but they may do so out of deference to the ethics committee that is more acquainted with those terms. The term protocol invites the researcher to stay the course, to plan something and find data that cannot be subject to interpretation. "Subjects" is a more common term in medical research but is seldom-used term in social research where "participant" is a more frequently used term. In social research, it is the researchers, especially ethnographers that see the research participant as the more powerful in the research relationship, certainly not the researcher.
A many-year exchange with Simon WHITNEY of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, has sharpened my understanding of ethics in research. I am grateful for these numerous exchanges. This paper is revised from the one that was presented as "Moving Away from Adversarial Relationships: The Strength of Diversity in Research-Ethics Review" at the International Scientific Workshop. University of Haifa, Israel, December 7, 2017. I also extend my appreciation to Wolff-Michael ROTH who worked through the initial digital and other problems of this manuscript. A number of colleagues provided comments on the early drafts of the manuscript, especially Igor GONTCHAROV and Ron IPHOFEN.
Abbott, Lura & Grady, Christine (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), 3-19.
Allemann, Lucas & Dudeck, Stephan (2017). Sharing oral history with Arctic indigenous communities: Ethical implications of bringing back research results. Qualitative Inquiry, Online First.
Allen, Gary (2008). Getting beyond form filling: The role of institutional governance in human research ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(2), 105-116.
Anonymous (2013). uOttawa criminologists go to court to protect research confidentiality. CAUT Bulletin, 60(1), 1 and 7.
Bell, Kirsten (2014). Resisting commensurability: Against informed consent as an anthropological virtue. American Anthropologist, 116(3), 511-522.
Bell, Kirsten (2015). Abandoning informed consent?. American Anthropological Association Ethics Blog, February 28, http://ethics.aaanet.org/abandoning-informed-consent/ [Accessed: April 10, 2018].
Bosk, Charles L. (2001). Irony, ethnography, and informed consent. In C. Barry Hoffmaster (Ed.), Bioethics in social context (pp.199-220). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Broverman, Aaron (2016). Woman with spina bifida filing human rights complaint against Danforth Bar. 21 August. Now Newsletter, https://nowtoronto.com/news/woman-with-spina-bifida-filing-human-rights-complaint-against-danforth-bar/ [Accessed: April 8, 2018].
Burris, Scott (2008). Regulatory innovation in the governance of human-subjects research: A cautionary tale and some modest proposals. Regulation and Governance, 2(1), 65-84.
Campbell, Nancy & Stark, Laura (2015). Making up "vulnerable" people: Human subjects and the subjective experience of medical experiment. Social History of Medicine, 28(4), 825-848.
Carpenter, Dale (2006). Institutional Review Boards, regulatory incentives, and some modest proposals for reform. Northwest University Law Review, 101(2), 687-706, http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/352 [Accessed: April 8, 2018].
Castrodale, Mark Anthony (2017). Mobilizing dis/ability research: A critical discussion of qualitative go-along interviews in practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(1), 45-55.
Daníelsson, Guδmundur (1972). Járnblómiδ [Weather vane]. Reykjavik: Isafoldar Prentsmiδja.
Garrard, Eve & Dawson, Angus (2005). What is the role of the research ethics committee? Paternalism, inducement, and harm in research ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 419-423.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Lowman, John & Palys, Ted (2014). The betrayal of research confidentiality in British sociology. Research Ethics, 10(2), 97-118.
Marlowe, Jay & Tolich, Martin (2015). Shifting from research governance to research ethics: A novel paradigm for ethical review in community-based research. Research Ethics, 11(4), 178-191.
McGinn, Michelle K. & Bosacki, Sandra L. (2004). Research ethics and practitioners: Concerns and strategies for novice researchers engaged in graduate education. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), Art. 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.615 [Accessed: April 8, 2018].
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978). The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research: Appendix Volume II. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0014, https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf [Accessed: April 4, 2018].
Ogden, Russell (2004). When research ethics and the law conflict. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of National Committee on Ethical Human Research, Aylmer, QC, March 6, 2004.
Olivier, Steve & Fishwick, Lesley (2003). Qualitative research in sport sciences: Is the biomedical ethics model applicable? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(1), Art. 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-4.1.754 [Accessed: April 8, 2018].
Restivo, Sal & Dowty, Rachel (2008). Obituary: Bernard Barber and Mary Douglas. Social Studies of Science, 38(4), 635-640.
Richardson, Laurel (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roth, Wolff-Michael (2004). (Un-) political ethics, (un-) ethical politics. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(3), Art. 35, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.3.573 [Accessed: April 8, 2018].
Santin, Marlene, & Kelly, Benjamin (2017). The managed heart revisited: Exploring the effect of institutional norms on the emotional labor of flight attendants post 9/11. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 46(5), 519-543.
Schroeder, Doris & Gefenas, Eugenijus (2012). Realising benefit sharing: The case of post-study obligations. Bioethics, 26(6), 305-314.
Smith, Wesley J. (2001). Revisiting the Belmont Report. Hastings Center Report, 31(2), 5.
Speckman, Jeanne L.; Byrne, Margaret M.; Gerson, Jason; Getz, Kenneth; Wangmo, Gary; Muse, Carianne T. & Sugarman, Jeremy (2007). Determining the costs of institutional review boards. IRB: Ethics and Behavior, 29(2), 7-13.
Tomkinson, Sule (2015). Doing fieldwork on state organizations in democratic settings: Ethical issues of research in refugee decision making. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1), Art 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.1.2201 [Accessed: April 8, 2018].
van den Hoonaard, Deborah K. (2001). The widowed self: The older woman's journey through widowhood. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
van den Hoonaard, Will C. (1972). Local-level autonomy: A case study of an Icelandic fishing community. M.A. Thesis, Department of Sociology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland.
van den Hoonaard, Will C. (1987). Book review of "Guy D. Wright, Sons and seals". Anthropologica, 29(2), 214-216.
van den Hoonaard, Will C. (1992). Reluctant pioneers: Constraints and opportunities in an Icelandic fishing community. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
van den Hoonaard, Will C. (2017a). About "othering" ourselves in a system with discrepant values: The research ethics review process today. In Ron Iphofen (Ed.), Finding common ground: Consensus in research ethics across the social sciences (pp.61-75). London: Emerald.
van den Hoonaard, Will C. (2017b). Critical enquiry in the context of research ethics review guidelines: Some unique and subtle challenges. In Catriona Macleod, Jacqueline Marx, Phindezwa Mnyaka & Gareth Treharne (Eds), Handbook of ethics in critical research: Stories from the field (pp.1117-130). Milton Park: Palgrave/Macmillan.
van den Hoonaard, Will C. & Connolly, Anita (2006). Anthropological research in light of research-ethics review: Canadian masters theses, 1995-2004. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(2), 59-70.
van den Hoonaard, Will C. & Hamilton, Ann (12016). The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research-ethics review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
von Unger, Hella; Dilger, Hansjörg & Schönhuth, Michael (2016). Ethics reviews in the social and cultural sciences? A sociological and anthropological contribution to the debate. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(3), Art. 20, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.3.2719 [Accessed: April 8, 2018].
Whitney, Simon N. & Schneider, Chris E. (2011). Viewpoint: A method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research. Journal of Internal Medicine, 269(4), 396-402.
Williams, Terry (2017). Teenage suicide notes: An ethnography of self-harm. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wolf, Daniel R. (1991). The rebels: A brotherhood of outlaw bikers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wright, Guy D. (1986). Sons and seals: A voyage to the ice. Halifax: Formac.
Yanow, Dvora & Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine (2008). Reforming Institutional Review Board policy: Issues in implementation and field research. Political Science and Politics, 41, 483-494.
Dr. Will C. van den HOONAARD, Professor Emeritus at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton, has conducted field research on a variety of topics, including Icelandic marine resource management, the Baha'i Community of Canada, the Dutch of New Brunswick, gender issues, inductive research, and a 700-year history of women mapmakers. Research ethics are the focus of six of his books. He is Founding Member of the Canadian Interagency Panel on Research Ethics. He was raised in the Netherlands, France, and Canada. A Woodrow Wilson Fellow, he obtained a PhD in sociology from the University of Manchester.
van den Hoonaard, Will C. (2018). Autobiographical Notes from Inside the Ethics Regime: Some Thoughts on How Researchers in the Social Sciences Can Own Ethics [45 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(3), Art. 3, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.3.3024.

References: Art. 6
 Art. 12
 Art. 35
 Art 6
 Art. 20
 Art. 3