Abstract
This paper describes the establishment of and the issues experienced by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of a Business School within a University in Ireland. It identifies the issue of voluntarily given informed consent as a key challenge for RECs operating in a Business School context. The paper argues that whilst the typology of ethical issues in business research are similar to the wider social sciences, the fact that much research is carried out in the workplace adds to the complexity of the REC deliberations. The use of deception in the design of research studies, pestering the local community and the potential for harm to the researcher are also discussed briefly in the context of business research. The experiences of the authors’, two of whom have served as respective chairpersons of the business school REC since its inception in addition to being members of the university level REC, inform the discussion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The KBSREC rejected a proposal from one student/professional to investigate racism in the workplace on the grounds that no clear answer was given to the question as to what the researcher would do if they uncovered evidence of racism.
References
Allen, G. (2008). Getting beyond form filling: the role of institutional governance in human research ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(2), 105–116.
Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception. American Psychologist, 40(2), 165–174.
Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2008). The nature of knowledge in business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7(4), 471–486.
Christians, C. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 139–164). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Erikson, K. (1967). A comment on disguised observation in sociology. Social Problems, 14(4), 366–373.
Fischman, M. (2000). Informed consent. In B. Sales & S. Folkman (Eds.), Ethics in research with human subjects (pp. 35–48). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.
Homan, R. (1980). The ethics of covert methods. The British Journal of Sociology, 31(1), 46–59.
Kitchener, K., & Kitchener, R. (2009). Social science research ethics: historical and philosophical issues. In D. Mertens & P. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (p. 667). California: Sage Publications Inc.
Mertens, D., & Ginsberg, P. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of social research ethics. California: Sage Publications Inc.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. (2004). The business school ‘business’: some lessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1501–1520.
Rawls, J. (1972). The theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tilley, S. (2008). A troubled dance: doing the work of research ethics review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(2), 91–104.
Van Den Hoonaard, W. (2006). New angles and tangles in the ethics review of research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4(1–4), 261–274.
Warwick, D. (1973). Tearoom trade: means and ends in social research. The Hasting Center Studies, 1(1), 27–38.
Williams-Jones, B., & Holm, S. (2005). A university wide model for the ethical review of human subjects research. Research Ethics Review, 1(2), 39–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Doyle, E., Mullins, M. & Cunningham, M. Research Ethics in a Business School Context: The Establishment of a Review Committee and the Primary Issues of Concern. J Acad Ethics 8, 43–66 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-010-9108-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-010-9108-x