Advertisement

Traversing Ethical Imperatives: Learning from Stories from the Field

  • Gareth J. TreharneEmail author
  • Phindezwa Mnyaka
  • Jacqueline Marx
  • Catriona Ida Macleod
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we integrate the lessons that are shared across this handbook through the rich, storied examples of ethics in critical research. We outline central themes to the handbook that cut across all of the sections. The notions of vulnerability and harm are pertinent in critical research not only as a duty to protect participants, but also as signifiers that are mobilised and can constrain what is achieved in critical research. The stories told in this handbook contribute to ongoing learning about ethics in critical research by drawing on ethically important moments in the unfolding research processes. We ask whether ethical critical research requires relational models of reciprocity between researchers and participants/co-researchers and appreciation of situated ethics in the bureaucratic review processes.

References

  1. Allen, G. (2008). Getting beyond form filling: The role of institutional governance in human research ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9057-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashcroft, R., & Pfeffer, N. (2001). Ethics behind closed doors: Do research ethics committees need secrecy? British Medical Journal, 322(7297), 1294–1296. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7297/1294.long CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond, T. (2012). Ethical imperialism or ethical mindfulness? Rethinking ethical review for social sciences. Research Ethics, 8(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016112445419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2017). Ethics in qualitative psychological research. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 259–273).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caligiuri, M., Allen, K., Buscher, N., Denney, L., Gates, C., Kantelo, K., … Fontanesi, J. (2017). A multisite study of performance drivers among institutional review boards. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(3), 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2017.8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, B. (2009). Tick box for child? The ethical positioning of children as vulnerable, researchers as barbarians and reviewers as overly cautious. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(6), 858–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cloke, P., Cooke, P., Cursons, J., Milbourne, P., & Widdowfield, R. (2000). Ethics, reflexivity and research: Encounters with homeless people. Ethics, Place & Environment, 3(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/713665889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  9. Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development, 31(8), 1325–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00086-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornwall, A., & Brock, K. (2005). What do buzzwords do for development policy? A critical look at ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘poverty reduction’. Third World Quarterly, 26(7), 1043–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590500235603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Jong, J. P., van Zwieten, M. C., & Willems, D. L. (2013). Research monitoring by US medical institutions to protect human subjects: Compliance or quality improvement? Journal of Medical Ethics, 5(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Ville, K., & Hassler, G. (2001). Healthcare ethics committees and the law: Uneasy but inevitable bedfellows. Healthcare Ethics Committee Forum, 13(1), 13–31.Google Scholar
  13. de Vries, R., & Forsberg, C. P. (2002). Who decides? A look at ethics committee membership. Healthcare Ethics Committee Forum, 14(3), 252–258.Google Scholar
  14. Etherington, K. (2007). Ethical research in reflexive relationships. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407301175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald, M. H., Phillips, P. A., & Yule, E. (2006). The research ethics review process and ethics review narratives. Ethics & Behavior, 16(4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1604_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallant, D. R., & Bliss, A. (2006). Qualitative social science research. In E. A. Bankert & R. J. Amdur (Eds.), Institutional review board: Management and function (2nd ed., pp. 397–401).Google Scholar
  17. Guta, A., Nixon, S., Gahagan, J., & Fielden, S. (2012). “Walking along beside the researcher”: How Canadian REBs/IRBs are responding to the needs of community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(1), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guta, A., Nixon, S. A., & Wilson, M. G. (2013). Resisting the seduction of “ethics creep”: Using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review. Social Science & Medicine, 98(1), 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000049239.15922.a3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hale, E. D., Treharne, G. J., & Kitas, G. D. (2007). Qualitative methodologies I: Asking research questions with reflexive insight. Musculoskeletal Care, 5, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.109 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammersley, M. (2015). On ethical principles for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.924169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedgecoe, A. M. (2012). Trust and regulatory organisations: The role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review. Social Studies of Science, 42(5), 662–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712446364 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Participation—From tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  24. Iphofen, R. (Ed.). (2017). Finding common ground-consensus in research ethics across the social sciences (Vol. 1). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Juritzen, T. I., Grimen, H., & Heggen, K. (2011). Protecting vulnerable research participants: A Foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees. Nursing Ethics, 18(5), 640–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011403807 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kotsis, S. V., & Chung, K. C. (2014). Institutional review boards: What’s old, what’s new, what needs to change? Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 133(2), 439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Louw, B., & Delport, R. (2006). Contextual challenges in South Africa: The role of a research ethics committee. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4(1–4), 39–60.Google Scholar
  29. Lyons, A. C., & Chamberlain, K. (2006). Health psychology: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyons, A. C., & Chamberlain, K. (2017). Critical health psychology. In B. Gough (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of critical social psychology (pp. 533–555). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malone, R. E., Yerger, V. B., McGruder, C., & Froelicher, E. (2006). ‘It’s like Tuskegee in reverse’: A case study of ethical tensions in institutional review board review of community-based participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 96(11), 1914–1919. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.082172 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Marlowe, J., & Tolich, M. (2015). Shifting from research governance to research ethics: A novel paradigm for ethical review in community-based research. Research Ethics, 11(4), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKenzie-Mohr, S., & Lafrance, M. (2011). Telling stories without the words: ‘Tightrope talk’ in women’s accounts of coming to live well after rape or depression. Feminism & Psychology, 21(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353510371367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mistry, J., Berardi, A., & Simpson, M. (2009). Critical reflections on practice: The changing roles of three physical geographers carrying out research in a developing country. Area, 41(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00841.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murray, M. (Ed.). (2014a). Critical health psychology (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Murray, M. (2014b). Social history of health psychology: Context and textbooks. Health Psychology Review, 8(2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317705879 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Murray, M., & Chamberlain, K. P. (2014). Health psychology. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 844–850). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Neill, J. (2010). One chairperson’s experience of ethical review: Balancing principle, convention, relationship and risk in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2010.511715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ogden, J. (2012). Health psychology (5th ed.). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pearce, M. (2002). Challenging the system: Rethinking ethics review of social research in Britain’s National Health Service. In W. C. van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 43–58). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pittaway, E., Bartolomei, L., & Hugman, R. (2010). ‘Stop stealing our stories’: The ethics of research with vulnerable groups. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huq004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Queen’s University Belfast. (2017). Introduction to ethics. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from http://www.qub.ac.uk/Research/Governance-ethics-and-integrity/Ethics/
  43. Quigley, D., Sonnenfeld, D., Brown, P., Silka, L., He, L., & Tian, Q. (2016). Research ethics training on place-based communities and cultural groups. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(3), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0236-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reubi, D. (2010). The will to modernize: A genealogy of biomedical research ethics in Singapore. International Political Sociology, 4, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712439457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rhodes University. (2017). Ethical standards committee. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from http://ruconnected.ru.ac.za/course/view.php?id=5399
  46. Richardson, S., & McMullan, M. (2007). Research ethics in the UK: What can sociology learn from health? Sociology, 41(6), 1115–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507082318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, L. J. (2008). How ethical is ethical research? Recruiting marginalized, vulnerable groups into health services research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04567.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Stark, L. (2012). Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Steele, L. M., Mulhearn, T. J., Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2016). How do we know what works? A review and critique of current practices in ethics training evaluation. Accountability in Research, 23(6), 319–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1186547 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Stewart-Withers, R. (2016). Edge walking ethics. New Zealand Sociology, 31(4), 28–42. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1852699623 Google Scholar
  51. Swartz, S. (2011). ‘Going deep’ and ‘giving back’: Strategies for exceeding ethical expectations when researching amongst vulnerable youth. Qualitative Research, 11(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110385885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tatebe, J. (2015). The ethics of difference: Ethical dilemmas of external researchers. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(3), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9236-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tolich, M. (2016). A narrative account of ethics committees and their codes. New Zealand Sociology, 31(4), 43–55. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1852699744 Google Scholar
  54. Tolich, M., Bathurst, R., Deckert, A., Flanagan, P., Gremillion, H., & Grimshaw, M. (2016). One size does not fit all: Organisational diversity in New Zealand tertiary sector ethics committees. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 11(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2015.1035732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Twine, R. (2005). Constructing critical bioethics by deconstructing culture/nature dualism. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 8(3), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-004-7812-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. University of Waikato. (2017). Human research ethics committee. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from http://www.waikato.ac.nz/research-enterprise/ethics/human-ethics-research-committee
  57. van den Hoonaard, W. C. (Ed.). (2002). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  58. van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2011). The seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  59. van den Hoonaard, W. C., & Hamilton, A. (Eds.). (2016). The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research-ethics review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wassenaar, D. R., & Mamotte, N. (2012). Ethical issues and ethics reviews in social science research. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A. Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics (pp. 268–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Whiteman, N. (2017). Accounting for ethics: Towards a de-humanised comparative approach. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117724499
  62. Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2013). Representing our own experience: Issues in “insider” research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), 251–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313483111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gareth J. Treharne
    • 1
    Email author
  • Phindezwa Mnyaka
    • 2
  • Jacqueline Marx
    • 3
  • Catriona Ida Macleod
    • 3
  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of HistoryUniversity of the Western CapeBellvilleSouth Africa
  3. 3.Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction, Department of PsychologyRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations