Judging the ethics of qualitative research: considering the ‘ethics as process’ model

Ramcharan, Paul; Cutcliffe, John R.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2524.2001.00323.x

Cited by 128 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ethical issues in qualitative methodologies often emerge as research studies unfold, but current systems of ethical review are unable to address the nature of this process (Ramcharan and Cutliffe 2001). In practice, many qualitative researchers struggle to describe their research within the required format.…”

Section: 8mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production

Truman

2003

Sociological Research Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of research ethics committees has expanded across the UK and North America and the process of ethical review has become re-institutionalised under proposals for research governance proposed by government. Ethics committees have gained a powerful role as gatekeepers within the research process. Underpinning the re-constitution of ethical guidelines and research governance, are a range of measures which protect institutional interests, without necessarily providing an effective means to address the moral obligations and responsibilities of researchers in relation to the production of social research. Discussion of research ethics from the standpoint of research participants who in this paper, are service users within health and social care, provides a useful dimension to current debate. In this paper I draw upon experiences of gaining ethical approval for a research study which focused on user participation within a community mental health service. I discuss the strategies used to gain ethical approval and the 'formal concerns' raised by the ethics committee. I then describe and discuss ethical issues which emerged from a participants' perspective during the actual research as it was carried out. These experiences are analysed using aspects of institutional ethnography which provides a framework to explore how the experiences of research participants are mediated by texts which govern the processes of research production. The paper highlights incongruities between the formal ethical regulation of research, and the experiences of research participants in relation to ethical concerns within a research process.

show abstract

Section: 8mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production

Truman

2003

Sociological Research Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It appears that RECs, by virtue of their foundation in biomedical research, use quantitative standards and methods leading to a paradigm bias against qualitative design, and concerned researchers have remarked on this over the last decade (Bledsoe, et al, 2007;Cutcliffe & Ramcharan, 2002;Haggerty, 2004;Librett & Perrone, 2010;Murphy & Dingwall, 2007;Ramcharan & Cutcliffe, 2001). In considering this matter, Parnis et al (2005) recognised the adherence of the health care institution REC to a dominant (biomedical) framework as a significant impediment to carrying out their research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an attempt to bridge biomedical and social research ethics, Ramcharan and Cutcliffe (2001) have identified what they term an ethics as process model that focuses specifically on the intricate ethical dilemmas encountered in qualitative research, and which addresses areas of risk to participants that might not have been consid-ered by a REC. To this end, the authors recommend a monitoring process, whereby emerging ethical issues can be addressed as they occur, and the risk:benefit ratio of the research is balanced contemporaneously, initially inclining towards benefit rather than risk (Cutcliffe & Ramcharan, 2002;Ramcharan & Cutcliffe, 2001).…”

Section: Addressing Ethics In Ethnographymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Newnham

Pincombe

McKellar

2013

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we discuss the principal difficulties in gaining ethics approval for an ethnographic midwifery doctoral research project in a hospital setting in South Australia. The research focus is on the various personal, social, institutional and cultural influences on women making a choice about whether or not to use epidural analgesia in labour. The obstacles encountered in gaining human research ethics committee (HREC) approval are discussed within the wider context of the benefits of ethnography as a research methodology, as well as the potential consequences to ethnography when assessed by quantitative research standards. By sharing our experience, we add to the current literature debating the "ethics" of ethics committee review in qualitative research approval. Engaging with the academic debate surrounding "ethics creep" -the increasing jurisdiction of ethics committees over research design -we consider the possibility of moving beyond principle-based ethics towards an ethical theory that more fully addresses the complexities of ethnographic research.

show abstract

“…In a number of instances, qualitative research has been found to conflict with guidelines laid down by medical research ethics committees (Ramcharan & Cutcliffe 2001;Richards & Schwartz 2001). Research designs favoured by such committees often do not allow for the evolving nature of social-research questions and the range of people who may be involved in projects.…”

Section: Case Notes From Anthropologists In the Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating human research ethics: Case notes from anthropologists in the field (Respond to this article at http://www.therai.org.uk/at/debate)

Chenhall¹,

Senior²,

Belton³

2011

Anthropology Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human ethics issues surrounding the conduct of health science research have been the subject of increasing debate among biomedical and social science researchers in recent years. Ethics procedures in health‐science research are typically concerned with protecting anonymity and confidentiality, and are tailored to work that primarily uses quantitative methodologies. For qualitative research in the health social sciences, a different set of ethical issues often arises in the research process. This article examines three case studies of qualitative researchers working with Indigenous Australian communities, focusing on the researchers’ experiences with ethics committees and how they approached a range of ethical issues arising in the course of their research. Key issues include: obtaining informed consent for participant observation; the evolving nature of qualitative research; the difficulties in foreseeing changes in approach; and the distinction between the research team and the researched in participatory action research.

show abstract

Judging the ethics of qualitative research: considering the ‘ethics as process’ model

Cited by 128 publications

References 43 publications

Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production

Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production

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

Negotiating human research ethics: Case notes from anthropologists in the field (Respond to this article at http://www.therai.org.uk/at/debate)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About