Ethics Review for Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

In many institutions, the institutional review board/research ethics board (IRB/REB) uses the traditional audit approach that emerged from the biomedical community (e.g., Nuremburg Code, Belmont Report) to review the ethical acceptability of research using humans as participants. This approach is guided by participant protection and risk management concerns. This article discusses the approach to ethics review currently being adopted at a large Canadian university in transition from a teaching to a research institution. It articulates the values that guide the REB in its deliberations and explores how these values support a facilitative—rather than an audit—approach to ethics review. Two case studies of innovative qualitative inquiry are discussed to demonstrate how Concordia University (Montreal, Canada) has adopted an approach to ethics review that attempts to encourage, engage, and support qualitative researchers in their research initiatives, while respecting established legal and ethical guidelines targeted primarily at clinical research.

Institutional Review Boards in Qualitative Research: Has it Gone Overboard?

“…Qualitative action research in Canadian Universities ensures specific conditions are attained before research is conducted with human participants. Research projects in Canadian universities are governed by the Tri-Council Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, which was put forward by the federal funding agencies that support research in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and medicine (Connolly & Reid, 2007). All Canadian universities are required to have Institutional Review Boards to review all faculty and student research and to enforce the "Tri-Council agency guidelines" (Connolly & Reid, 2007).…”

“…Research projects in Canadian universities are governed by the Tri-Council Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, which was put forward by the federal funding agencies that support research in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and medicine (Connolly & Reid, 2007). All Canadian universities are required to have Institutional Review Boards to review all faculty and student research and to enforce the "Tri-Council agency guidelines" (Connolly & Reid, 2007). All qualitative research proposals involving human participants at the Canadian university level must be approved prior to the implementation of any procedure.…”

Access or Egress? Questioning the “Ethics” of Ethics Committee Review for an Ethnographic Doctoral Research Study in a Childbirth Setting

“…Just as the REC ethics approval process has been described as taking attention away from daily ethical dilemmas (Bledsoe et al, 2007;Cutcliffe & Ramcharan, 2002;Hammersley, 2009), it follows that a shift towards such models could have a positive influence on transforming the REC role towards that of facilitator rather than regulator, in ways such as those illustrated by Connolly and Reid (2007). Ideally, continuing robust discussion, theorising and practice that embraces the nuances of qualitative research, that recognises the connectivity between researcher and researched, and the potential for good or harm that this entails could even, eventually, have an impact on Guta et al's (2012) "research machine industry" (p. 8).…”

“…This approach, of a REC having a facilitative, rather than a regulatory, role would appear to support the ethical nuances of qualitative research. Outlining case studies of a REC that utilised a "values-based approach", Connolly and Reid (2007) have written that included in this approach was the acknowledgement that researchers had expert knowledge of their methodologies, and if peer review were achieved, the REC did not consider methodology part of their remit. Currently, the majority of RECs consider the methodology as part of the overall review process, and this is a bone of contention amongst qualitative researchers (Hammersley, 2009;Ramcharan & Cutcliffe, 2001).…”

Monitorização neoliberal e decisões éticas na etnografia: algumas reflexões

“…The hegemonic status of their power to impose conformity over the autonomy of researchers ex cathedra is widely acknowledged, although some believe meaningful compromise is possible (Connolly 2007). The cynic would argue throughout higher education this obsessive concern with academic research ethics does not reflect a recently discovered fascination for the intrinsic merits of research and ethical justification and legitimating, instead it reflects an instrumentalist anxiety over potential and costly law suits leading to reputational damage, should research participants or others judge their rights to have been infringed (Berg, Huijbens and Larsen 2016).…”