Advertisement

Introduction: Encounters with Systems Within Which Critical Research Is Conducted

  • Gareth J. TreharneEmail author
  • Jacqueline Marx
Chapter
  • 654 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter introduces the section about encounters with systems in critical research. Each chapter presents a particular critical angle on ethics committees (also known as institutional review boards) as the primary system that critical researchers, like all health researchers and social researchers, are increasingly required to navigate. At the same time, the studies that provide the central stories in the chapters in this section feature encounters with a range of other social and health systems including healthcare organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and universities. Together, the chapters in this section highlight the distinctions between health research and social research, between research and practice, between risk avoidance models of ethical bureaucracy and relational models of ethical researching, and between critical research and hegemonic biomedical models of research.

References

  1. Barnard, H. (1990). Bourdieu and ethnography: Reflexivity, politics and praxis. In An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu (pp. 58–85). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2014). Tri-council policy statement on ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa: Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf
  4. Denzin, N. K., & Giardia, M. D. (2007). Introduction: Ethical futures in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardia (Eds.), Ethical futures in qualitative research: Decolonizing the politics of knowledge (pp. 9–45). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  5. Department of Health [of the Republic of South Africa]. (2015). Ethics in health research: Principles, processes and structures (2nd ed.). Pretoria: Department of Health. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/190/ZP_Files/doh-2015-ethics-in-health-research-principles-processes-and-structures-2nd-ed-prof-staden.zp118314.pdf
  6. Dingwall, R. (2008). The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Twenty-First Century Society, 3, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Economic & Social Research Council. (n.d.). Criteria for research ethics committee review. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/criteria-for-research-ethics-committee-review/
  8. Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Health Research Authority [of the UK National Health Service]. (n.d.). Research ethics committee members. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from http://www.hra.nhs.uk/research-ethics-committee-members
  10. Lazar, M. M. (2005). Politicizing gender in discourse: Feminist critical discourse analysis as political perspective and praxis. In Feminist critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–28). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ministry of Health [of Aotearoa/New Zealand]. (2017). About the committees. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from http://ethics.health.govt.nz/about-committees
  12. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf
  13. Neill, C. (2016). Ethics and psychology: Beyond codes of practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Reubi, D. (2010). The will to modernize: A genealogy of biomedical research ethics in Singapore. International Political Sociology, 4, 142–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies (2nd ed.). Dunedin: Otago University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Treharne, G. J., & Riggs, D. W. (2015). Ensuring quality in qualitative research. In P. Rohleder & A. C. Lyons (Eds.), Qualitative research in clinical and health psychology (pp. 57–73). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. United Nations. (2006). United Nations General Assembly A/61/611 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html
  18. van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2011). The seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  19. World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction, Department of PsychologyRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations