The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes

Abstract

Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) find these processes to be misaligned, if not outrightly obstructive to their research. This leads some scholars to advocate against HASS participation in institutional review processes as they currently stand, or in their entirety. While ethics review processes can present a challenge to HASS researchers, these are not insurmountable and, in fact, present opportunities for ethics review boards (ERBs) to mediate their practices to better attend to the concerns of the HASS disciplines. By highlighting the potential value of the ethics review process in recognising the nuances and specificity across different forms of research, this article explores the generative possibilities of greater collaboration between HASS researchers and ERBs. Remaining cognisant of the epistemic and methodological differences that mark different disciplinary formations in turn will benefit the ethical conduct of all researchers.

Clarifying our policy on requiring ethics approval in submitted manuscripts

“…We agree that research ethics approval processes should not be seen as a burden for researchers. In this issue, Carniel et al (2023) highlight the potential values of the ethics review process. Speaking from their own experience, they suggest that there is considerable capacity for ethics committees to engage with researchers to nurture research culture.…”

Relevance and Challenges of Ethics Committees

“…Based on the situation in the United States, it has been claimed that institutional review boards are understaffed, overburdened; that they do not devote enough time, lack sufficient experience, and do not have institutional support [21,22]. Additionally, there have been discussions on how to define and measure the quality of an institutional review board [23,24]; how to deal with inconsistencies in research ethics committee review [25]; how to address the disciplinary distinctions in the ethics review process, [26] and the reasons why retrospective review should be added to a prospective one [27].…”

Research ethics in practice: An analysis of ethical issues encountered in qualitative health research with mental health service users and relatives

“…Responding to the criticism of the ethics review of qualitative health research, other authors contend that the mismatch is overstated and argue for a more positive role for research ethics committees in regulating and overseeing qualitative health research (Carniel et al 2022;Jennings 2012;Wassenaar and Mamotte 2012), pointing to alternative paradigms of research oversight like those referred to by Emanuel and Grady (2007) as "participant access" and "collaborative partnership." These paradigms both aim to prevent the exclusion of underrepresented individuals from research but do so in different ways: whereas the former strives to secure research access for vulnerable individuals by reference to rights to autonomy, the latter goes further by involving members of the research participant community in a collaborative research process (Emanuel and Grady 2007).…”