- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Ethics review, reflective equilibrium and reflexivity
Nursing Ethics 29 (1):49-62 (2022)
Abstract
Background:Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or their equivalent review applications for prospective research with human participants. Reviewers use universally agreed principlesi to make decisions...My notes
Similar books and articles
How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review.Carl H. Coleman & Marie-Charlotte Bouësseau - 2008 - BMC Medical Ethics 9 (1):6-.
Transforming a personal inquiry into a research project: case study.E. L. Pattullo - 1981 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 3 (4):5-6.
The IRB's monitoring function: four concepts of monitoring.E. J. Heath - 1978 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 1 (5):103-103.
Qualitative health research and procedural ethics: An interview study to investigate researchers’ ways of navigating the demands of medical research ethics committees in Germany.Sarah Potthoff, Fee Roth & Matthé Scholten - 2024 - Research Ethics 20 (2):388-410.
Response to Schrag: What are ethics committees for anyway? A defence of social science research ethics review.Sean Jennings - 2012 - Research Ethics 8 (2):87-96.
Is it time to abandon institutional research ethics committees?J. Savulescu - 2002 - Monash Bioethics Review 21 (3):S74-S77.
The Case against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences.Zachary M. Schrag - 2011 - Research Ethics 7 (4):120-131.
Science review in research ethics committees: Double jeopardy?Stephen Humphreys, Hilary Thomas & Robyn Martin - 2014 - Research Ethics 10 (4):227-237.
Should local research ethics committees monitor research they have approved?E. Pickworth - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (5):330-333.
Analytics
Added to PP
2022-04-07
Downloads
6 (#1,484,355)
6 months
3 (#1,046,495)
2022-04-07
Downloads
6 (#1,484,355)
6 months
3 (#1,046,495)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Evidence-Based Guidelines for Low-Risk Ethics Applicants: A Qualitative Analysis of the Most Frequent Feedback Made by Human Research Ethics Proposal Reviewers.Sarven S. McLinton, Sarah N. Menz, Bernard Guerin & Elspeth McInnes - forthcoming - Journal of Academic Ethics:1-24.
References found in this work
Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress - 1995 - Hastings Center Report 25 (4):37.
Recent work on reflective equilibrium and method in ethics.Folke Tersman - 2018 - Philosophy Compass 13 (6):e12493.
The job of ‘ethics committees’.Andrew Moore & Andrew Donnelly - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (7):481-487.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-68866f4b87-kftwx uwo