Australian research ethics governance: Plotting the demise of the adversarial culture
Author(s)
Israel, M
Allen, G
Thomson, C
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2016
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
During the past few years, researchers have expressed serious concerns about the impact of the requirements for research ethics review on the nature of social science research in general and qualitative research in particular. Such fears have been raised repeatedly in countries with relatively lengthy histories of research ethics regulation, including Australia, the United States, and Canada. Discontent has also surfaced in the United Kingdom and Brazil as they have moved towards a more centralized response to research ethics and integrity. Social scientists complain that neither the writers of the codes that govern research ...
View more >During the past few years, researchers have expressed serious concerns about the impact of the requirements for research ethics review on the nature of social science research in general and qualitative research in particular. Such fears have been raised repeatedly in countries with relatively lengthy histories of research ethics regulation, including Australia, the United States, and Canada. Discontent has also surfaced in the United Kingdom and Brazil as they have moved towards a more centralized response to research ethics and integrity. Social scientists complain that neither the writers of the codes that govern research nor the local ethics board members who review research projects understand their roles (Israel, 2015). As a result, researchers believe that important work, work that is both ethically and methodologically sound, is being blocked and even stigmatized by the research ethics bureaucracy. In some places, the end result is a system where regulators and regulated view each other as responsible for an increasingly antagonistic relationship. In short, we have seen the growth of elements of an adversarial culture in the regulation of research ethics.
View less >
View more >During the past few years, researchers have expressed serious concerns about the impact of the requirements for research ethics review on the nature of social science research in general and qualitative research in particular. Such fears have been raised repeatedly in countries with relatively lengthy histories of research ethics regulation, including Australia, the United States, and Canada. Discontent has also surfaced in the United Kingdom and Brazil as they have moved towards a more centralized response to research ethics and integrity. Social scientists complain that neither the writers of the codes that govern research nor the local ethics board members who review research projects understand their roles (Israel, 2015). As a result, researchers believe that important work, work that is both ethically and methodologically sound, is being blocked and even stigmatized by the research ethics bureaucracy. In some places, the end result is a system where regulators and regulated view each other as responsible for an increasingly antagonistic relationship. In short, we have seen the growth of elements of an adversarial culture in the regulation of research ethics.
View less >
Book Title
The Ethics Rupture: Exploring Alternatives to Formal Research-Ethics Review
Publisher URI
Subject
Professional ethics