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

Abstract

A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes that 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 focus its analysis on the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative 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 Jürgen Habermas' (1984) articulation of 'communicative action' and Nancy Fraser's (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.

The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes

“…While we are sympathetic to such criticism and acknowledge that the auditculture inherent to the contemporary university provides a mediating context in the enactment of ethics review processes, we note that such processes can, when motivated by a spirit of engagement and collegiality (Allen, 2008;Hickey et al, 2022) alternatively provide the foundation for far more generative encounters. In our previous research (Hickey et al, 2022) we have noted that when ERBs approach ethics review with a conviction towards deliberative engagement, the ethics review process can be actively used to advocate for modes of research that might otherwise be proscribed.…”

“…In our previous research (Hickey et al, 2022) we have noted that when ERBs approach ethics review with a conviction towards deliberative engagement, the ethics review process can be actively used to advocate for modes of research that might otherwise be proscribed. Providing that the constitution of the ERB’s membership is considered carefully and that ‘a wide range of expertise and disciplinary knowledge’ (Hickey et al, 2022: 553) is represented, the capacity for the ERB to advocate for and endorse approaches to research beyond narrowly conceived ‘rational, scientific and quantitative’ (Troiani and Dutson, 2021: 5) forms of research presents as a distinct opportunity.…”

“…A second strategy involves the ERB’s members engaging directly with researchers. Hickey et al (2022) identify that engaging researchers in the review process provides an opportunity to broach connections with researchers and inform ERB practice. This can be achieved by having researchers participate directly in the deliberations of the ERB, or via processes where representatives of the ERB convene with researchers to later report back to the full ERB (Hickey et al, 2022).…”

“…Hickey et al (2022) identify that engaging researchers in the review process provides an opportunity to broach connections with researchers and inform ERB practice. This can be achieved by having researchers participate directly in the deliberations of the ERB, or via processes where representatives of the ERB convene with researchers to later report back to the full ERB (Hickey et al, 2022). Engaging directly with researchers as discipline experts enables the ERB to understand the objectives guiding the researchers’ prerogatives, and to deliberate in real-time with the researchers.…”

Invited Peer Commentary: Research Site Anonymity in Context

“…The DoH (2015) guidelines encourage RECs to adopt an open-door policy where researchers should be able to interact with the REC on issues related to the ethics review process. At the same time, RECs should strive to improve communications with researchers and the research community (Hickey et al, 2021; Wassenaar & Slack, 2016). This could include invitations to REC meetings and regular dialogue at strategic platforms within host institutions so that researchers have opportunities to interact with their RECs.…”