Research ethics committees: values and power in higher education

McAreavey, Ruth; Muir, Jenny

doi:10.1080/13645579.2011.565635

Cited by 52 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition the results about spiritual culture were consistent with other findings (Bradly et al, 2003;Mitroff & Denton, 1999;Palmer, 2010;Tissdell, 2003;Mc Sherry et al, 2008;Ofori, 2009;Salehi et al, 2015;Fawcett et al, 2008). Moreover the results about transcendence experiences were consistent with other findings (World Health Quality Of Life Spirituality Religion Personal Belief Group, 2006;Floyd et al, 2013;Fallon's Report, 2005;Seigel et al, 2013;McAreavey et al, 2011;Karakas, 2010;Chattopadhyay, 2010;Mitroff et al, 1999;Procario-Foley et al, 2002). The results of study about excellence were consistent with other findings (Tawlar, 2009;Toroudi et al, 2015;Sales et al, 2015;Naserabadi, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…To behave ethically means to protect others, reduce harm and increase the sum of good in the world (McAreavey & Muir, 2011;Ofori, 2009;Eisenbeiss, 2012). Organizations that adhere to ethical precepts have significantly better chances of achieving excellence than those engaged in dishonest and unethical behavior (Procario-Foley, 2002;Baei & Rahmani, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of spirituality and ethics in higher education quality improvement

Motlagh¹,

Jamali²,

Ghoorchian³

2016

10.5267/j.msl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of spirituality and ethics in higher education quality improvement

Motlagh¹,

Jamali²,

Ghoorchian³

2016

10.5267/j.msl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To add to literature on the opinion of social researchers on research ethics governance Ethical regulation is fundamentally wrong because the damage that is caused to a democratic society far exceeds any possible harm to a human participant McAreavey and Muir [3] Austria…”

Section: Literature and Narratives From Researchersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McAreavey and Muir [3] found widespread dissatisfaction with the ethical-review model at Australian universities. In this study, multiple perspectives were gained through discussions with a REC member, a researcher, a supervisor, a research applicant and a university administrator, who each related their own experiences regarding the ethics-review process.…”

Section: Literature and Narratives From Researchersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This interpretation of how a human participant is defined, and of what constitutes health research, has resulted in widespread discomfort and dissatisfaction with the model that currently governs research at most modern universities, which requires all health researchers to obtain ethical approval from RECs or IRBs. [3] Some researchers are of the view that ethics-review committees create a moral panic by means of distorted claims about potential harms to participants. [3] This structured review was motivated by these continual debates about what constitutes a human participant, and when research can be identified as health related, as well as other challenges, such as what type of research should be subjected to an ethics review process, and the impact that the legislation, governance and regulation of research by RECs and IRBs have on researchers, research and participants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protection of the human research participant: A structured review

Roets

2017

S Afr Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of health research, and concerns about the protection of human participants, dates back as far as the 1800s. The regulation, legislation and ethics-review requirements regarding the protection of the human research participants cause lively debates among researchers and scientists. The objective of this article is to share the findings of a structured review that was aimed at investigating the impact of and challenges with regard to the legislation, governance and research regulations aimed at protecting human research participants. The thematic analysis of the findings revealed dissatisfaction with diverse operational practices; different legislation and regulation practices; and institutional governance. Simplified and universally agreed-upon regulations and operational practices are needed, as is a common understanding of all concepts relating to ethical research conduct.

show abstract

The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study

Brown

Spiro

Quinton

2020

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethics committees have an important role to play in ensuring ethical standards (e.g. BERA, ESRC, RCUK recommendations) are met by educational researchers. Balancing obligations to participants, society, institutions and the researchers themselves is not, however, easy. Researchers often experience the ethics committee as unsympathetic to their research endeavour, whilst ethics committees find some research approaches do not make ethical implications sufficiently explicit. This potential for misunderstanding is evident in the literature, but studies investigating how participants perceive this relationship are missing. This research comprises a novel empirical study which explores researcher perceptions of research ethics committees. Fifty‐five participants in higher education departments of education responded to an online survey. Open and closed‐ended questions were used to collect data on roles, methodological stance, experiences of the research ethics committee, perceived tensions and examples of good practice. The results indicated that contemporary educational researchers regard research ethics committees as friends when researcher and reviewer are transparently engaged in a shared endeavour. When this shared endeavour breaks down, for a variety of reasons—including apparently unreasonable demands or mutual misunderstanding—the research ethics committees can become foes. The difference between foe and friend lies in the quality of communication, clear systems and a culture of respectful mutual learning. The contributions of this study have practical implications for the ways that education researchers and research ethics committees relate to one another within university settings, both to alleviate areas of tension and to arrive at a shared understanding which will enable best ethical research practice.

show abstract

Research ethics committees: values and power in higher education

Cited by 52 publications

References 35 publications

The role of spirituality and ethics in higher education quality improvement

The role of spirituality and ethics in higher education quality improvement

Protection of the human research participant: A structured review

The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About