Individualism in the United States

Walls, Stephanie

doi:10.5040/9781501310058

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Belmont Report and the IRB share an additional quality that is central to the discussion at hand: they are intently focused on the well-being of the individual (Emanuel and Weijer, 2005)—an institutionalization of ideological individualism which had been used in a variety of ways throughout Western modernity as a means of discrimination, oppression, and dispossession (e.g., Bose, 2003; Fevre, 2016; Walls, 2015).…”

Section: Communities In the Ethical Blind Spotmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oversight: Community vulnerabilities in the blind spot of research ethics

Cragoe

2017

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In spite of many and varied concerns that the processes of institutional ethical review are flawed, cumbersome, and in need of reform, these processes do provide effective protection in certain situations for individual research subjects, researchers, and the institutions from which the researchers venture to conduct their fieldwork. Many in the social sciences have argued that the ethical protocols that the researcher must observe are designed to protect against the potential dangers of much riskier biomedical research, and that social research is, by and large, harmless. Although there is some validity to that argument, in this paper, social research is assessed not in terms of its risks to the individual participant, but to communities. By examining the protocols of the Belmont Report, the Institutional Review Board, and the American Sociological Association's "Code of Ethics" and ethical review, this paper discusses some of the major blind spots in the ethical review of social science research, applying the analysis in particular to the case of indigenous communities, who have historically sustained significant damage from academic researchers against which no standardized institutional review could have protected them. The paper covers the history and parameters of these three ethical review institutions, identifies shared blind spots, and discusses the consequences of these blind spots for indigenous communities, ending with some suggestions of ways to address the problems in the system.

show abstract

Section: Communities In the Ethical Blind Spotmentioning

confidence: 99%