Far from neutral: Research ethics committees, interdisciplinarity and fieldwork

IF 1.5 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Alexandra Halkias
{"title":"Far from neutral: Research ethics committees, interdisciplinarity and fieldwork","authors":"Alexandra Halkias","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>This article critiques research ethics committees (RECs) for stifling social sciences research through rigid, one-size-fits-all ethics protocols. It highlights how these protocols, rooted in medical science perspectives, ignore the complexities of fieldwork, and prioritize institutional protection over knowledge advancement. The article illustrates the bureaucratic barriers to sociological and gender studies research through a case study involving fieldwork in a Greek hospital, showing how intersecting hierarchies in the field can render REC instruments invasive or moot. This article aims to enrich academic enquiry by acknowledging the diverse realities of research subjects and methodologies.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8322.12876","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropology Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8322.12876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article critiques research ethics committees (RECs) for stifling social sciences research through rigid, one-size-fits-all ethics protocols. It highlights how these protocols, rooted in medical science perspectives, ignore the complexities of fieldwork, and prioritize institutional protection over knowledge advancement. The article illustrates the bureaucratic barriers to sociological and gender studies research through a case study involving fieldwork in a Greek hospital, showing how intersecting hierarchies in the field can render REC instruments invasive or moot. This article aims to enrich academic enquiry by acknowledging the diverse realities of research subjects and methodologies.

远非中立:研究伦理委员会、跨学科和实地工作
本文批判了研究伦理委员会(RECs)通过僵化、一刀切的伦理协议扼杀社会科学研究的做法。文章强调了这些植根于医学科学视角的规程如何忽视了实地工作的复杂性,如何将机构保护置于知识进步之上。文章通过一个涉及希腊医院实地调查的案例研究,说明了社会学和性别研究面临的官僚主义障碍,展示了实地调查中相互交织的等级制度如何使 REC 工具具有侵入性或无效性。本文旨在通过承认研究对象和方法的多样性现实,丰富学术研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anthropology Today
Anthropology Today ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Anthropology Today is a bimonthly publication which aims to provide a forum for the application of anthropological analysis to public and topical issues, while reflecting the breadth of interests within the discipline of anthropology. It is also committed to promoting debate at the interface between anthropology and areas of applied knowledge such as education, medicine, development etc. as well as that between anthropology and other academic disciplines. Anthropology Today encourages submissions on a wide range of topics, consistent with these aims. Anthropology Today is an international journal both in the scope of issues it covers and in the sources it draws from.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信