Journal of Academic Ethics:1-19 (forthcoming)

Abstract
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 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’ articulation of ‘communicative action’ and Fraser’s, 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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10805-021-09430-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,242
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Is Mandatory Research Ethics Reviewing Ethical?Murray Dyck & Gary Allen - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):517-520.
Improving the Process of Research Ethics Review.Jeffrey Nyeboer & Stacey A. Page - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
Reflections on My Experience in Human Research Ethics.K. G. Davey - 2009 - Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):27-31.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-07-16

Total views
7 ( #1,034,281 of 2,444,747 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #103,190 of 2,444,747 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes