Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorIsrael, M
dc.contributor.authorAllen, G
dc.contributor.authorThomson, C
dc.description.abstractDuring 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.
dc.publisherUniversity of Toronto Press
dc.relation.ispartofbooktitleThe Ethics Rupture: Exploring Alternatives to Formal Research-Ethics Review
dc.subject.fieldofresearchProfessional ethics
dc.titleAustralian research ethics governance: Plotting the demise of the adversarial culture
dc.typeBook chapter
dc.type.descriptionB2 - Chapters (Other)
dc.type.codeB - Book Chapters
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorAllen, Gary

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Book chapters
    Contains book chapters authored by Griffith authors.

Show simple item record