Fieldwork in forbidden terrain: the state, privatization and human subjects regulations

Warren, Carol; Staples, William G.

doi:10.1007/bf02697832

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers returning from Cuba could be subject to surveillance or harassment, and even have publications confiscated by US customs (Fuller, 1988, p. 104). As Fuller (1988) and others (Lee, 1993;Tombs & Whyte, 2003;Warren & Staples, 1989) have noted, such restrictions present difficulties for researchers seeking to interrogate the claims of state officials and other powerful actors, who may find themselves unable to carry out research with sufficient methodological rigour, reinforcing the accounts of those who govern access. As a result, the overall quality of social scientific knowledge suffers, since this leads not only to gaps in knowledge, but also to 'unknown, unknowns', which together make it difficult to make informed professional judgements in the affected fields.…”

Section: Censorship and Coercionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secrecy, coercion and deception in research on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’

Massoumi

Mills

Miller³

2019

Contemporary Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article calls for more understanding of the ethical challenges and dilemmas that arise as a result of state involvement in academic research on 'terrorism' and 'extremism'. It suggests that researchers and research institutions need to be more attentive to the possibilities of co-option, compromise, conflict of interests and other ethical issues. The paper empirically examines the relationship between academic researchers and the security state. It highlights three key ways in which ethical and professional standards in social scientific research can be compromised: (1) Interference with the evidence base (through a lack of transparency on data and conflicts of interest); (2) Collaboration on research supporting deception by the state which undermines the ability of citizens to participate in democratic processes; and (3) Collaboration on research legitimating human rights abuses, and other coercive state practices. These issues are widespread, but neglected, across: literature on 'terrorism' and 'extremism'; literature on research ethics; and, in practical ethical safeguards and procedures within research institutions. In order to address these issues more effectively, we propose that any assessment of research ethics must consider the broader power relations that shape knowledge production as well as the societal impact of research. In focusing on the centrality of statesthe most powerful actors in the field of 'terrorism' and 'extremism'our approach moves beyond the rather narrow procedural approaches that currently predominate. We argue more attention to the power of the state in research ethics will not only help to make visible, and combat, ethically problematic issues, but will also help to protect the evidence base from contamination. We conclude by proposing a series of practical measures to address the problems highlighted.

show abstract

Section: Censorship and Coercionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secrecy, coercion and deception in research on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’

Massoumi

Mills

Miller³

2019

Contemporary Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although good interactions remain the norm, social scientists have expressed profound frustration with IRBs (Hessler, Galliher, and Reynolds 1983;Murray 1998;Niemonen 2000;Ross et al 2000;Shea 2000;Timmermans 1995;Warren and Staples 1989). I am aware of complaints that IRBs are obstructionist, irrational, inconsistent, foolish, and even malicious.…”

Section: The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But this is not my focus here. 3 Of interest are social scientific program evaluators, many of whom seem extraordinarily sympathetic to IRB oversight but who also appear increasingly frustrated, annoyed, and upset by IRB decisions, inconsistencies, delays, and misunderstandings (Hessler, Galliher, and Reynolds 1983;Murray 1998;Niemonen 2000;Ross et al 2000;Shea 2000;Timmermans 1995;Warren and Staples 1989). Because no research may be conducted without IRB approval, it is understandable that strong feelings obtain.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Risks and Wrongs in Social Science Research

Oakes

2002

Eval Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Having an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and monitor the use of human subjects is now fundamental to ethical research. Yet social scientists appear increasingly frustrated with the process. This article aims to assist evaluators struggling to understand and work with IRBs. The author theorizes why IRBs frustrate and insists there is only one remedy: We must accept the legitimacy of IRB review and (a) learn more about IRB regulations, imperatives, and the new pressures on them; and (b) educate IRBs about social scientific methodologies and empirically demonstrable risks. A research agenda and tips are offered.

show abstract

“…If they do not do so, the dispute turns into a dispute of another kind, and falls outside our present scope, because it is a dispute about the legitimacy of the social institutions we have to arbitrate value disputes of this sort. 250 We will return to this issue when we conclude this chapter by examining the difference between procedural and substantive methods of ethics.…”

Section: Understanding Refusals: the Significance Of Culture Refusal mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of socio-cultural contexts for the ethics of clinical trials.

Ashcroft¹,

Chadwick²,

Clark³

et al. 1997

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Panel (see inside back cover). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health.

show abstract

Fieldwork in forbidden terrain: the state, privatization and human subjects regulations

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Secrecy, coercion and deception in research on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’

Secrecy, coercion and deception in research on ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’

Risks and Wrongs in Social Science Research

Implications of socio-cultural contexts for the ethics of clinical trials.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About