Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
arts and humanities
Beyond Criticism of Ethics Review Boards: Strategies for Engaging Research Communities and Enhancing Ethical Review Processes
Journal of Academic Ethics, Volume 20, No. 4, Year 2022
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes used to determine the ethical merit of research. Citing criticism on the bureaucratic nature of ethics review processes, this literature provides a useful provocation for (re)considering how the ethics review might be enacted. Much of this criticism focuses on how ethics review boards deliberate, with particular attention given to the lack of transparency and opportunities for researcher recourse that characterise ethics review processes. Centered specifically on the conduct of ethics review boards convened within university settings, this paper draws on these inherent criticisms to consider the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative and deliberative practices. Outlining a set of principles against which ethics review boards might establish strategies for engaging with researchers and research communities, this paper draws attention to how Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility for the ethics review might be enacted in the day-to-day practice of the university human ethics review board. This paper develops these themes via a conceptual lens derived from Habermas’ (The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society, 1984) articulation of ‘communicative action’ and Fraser’s (Social Text, 25(26), 56–80, 1990) consideration of ‘strong publics’ to cast consideration of the role that human ethics review boards might play in supporting university research cultures. Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility provide useful conceptual prompts for considering how ethics review boards might undertake their work. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Authors & Co-Authors
Moloney, Clint Wayne
Australia, Toowoomba
University of Southern Queensland
Mills, Dean E.
Australia, Toowoomba
University of Southern Queensland
Kolbe-Alexander, Tracy Lynn
Australia, Toowoomba
University of Southern Queensland
Machin, Tanya M.
Australia, Toowoomba
University of Southern Queensland
Statistics
Citations: 6
Authors: 4
Affiliations: 1
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1007/s10805-021-09430-4
ISSN:
15701727