Ethical research, academic freedom and the role of ethics committees and review procedures in educational research

Abstract

IntroductionOur aim is to re-present and reflect educational researchers' lived experiences of ethical review committees and procedures. We decided to put together this collection as a result of what happened to us when we sought clearance for an undoubtedly sensitive study of the perceptions and experiences of male schoolteachers (and those of members of their families, their friends and colleagues) accused of sexual misconduct with female students which they said they had not committed and of which they were eventually cleared or where the case was dismissed (Sikes and Piper 2008, 2010). We had a difficult time and consequently became curious about how it was for others. However, with notable exceptions such as Burgess (1984), Nind et al. (2005) and Simons and Usher (2000) the available literature concerning educational research ethics largely took a meta-ethical overview, or was negatively critical about the ethics review process per se, or came from America and focused specifically on the workings of the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in that country. We, therefore, decided to investigate whether and to what extent Mark Israel and Iain Hay's claim that:

Ethical issues in cross-cultural research

“…This is what Appadurai (2001) refers to as deparochializing the research imagination in the face of globalization and the internationalization of higher education. Finally, as Sikes and Piper (2010) argue, it is important to consider the impact of ethics processes on students from peripheral countries as a form of colonization, a position also argued persuasively by Appadurai (2001) and Connell (2007). The narratives included in this paper are attempts by those on the periphery to engage in productive and meaningful dialogues with those in authority so that new understandings of the issues related to cross-cultural ethical research can be achieved.…”

Respecting and fulfilling the right of post-primary pupils to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research: a discussion paper

“…Aside from the significance and necessity of ethical scrutiny, RECs have the power to prevent research studies from going ahead for example if they do not comply with associated standards. RECs may also decide to act out of fear of potential litigation (Sikes and Piper 2010). From a researcher perspective RECs ensure there is a protocol in place to explain the range of ways in which the consent of children and young people is obtained, and the weight that is given to young people's views about research participation.…”

The Potential of Digital Technologies for Transforming Informed Consent Practices with Children and Young People in Social Research

“…Indeed, Brooks et al's (2014) above comment highlights that concerns about the presentation of research information become magnified and more complex when the involvement of (so-called) 'vulnerable' groups is mooted (Parsons, Abbott, McKnight, & Davies, 2015;Sikes & Piper, 2010); 'vulnerable' groups usually include children and young people and others with potentially reduced capacity to consent such as the elderly, and people with learning disabilities or mental health difficulties (ESRC, 2015). The concerns about free and informed consent arise in relation to these groups mostly in relation to the potential for the abuse of power (knowingly or unconsciously) through participants feeling pressure to participate and/or not really understanding what they are participating in or why their participation is necessary (Cameron & Murphy, 2007;Flory & Emanuel, 2004;Stalker, 1998).…”