Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-07-28 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2382736

Jonathan R Kasstan, Geoff Pearson

{"title":"Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation.","authors":"Jonathan R Kasstan, Geoff Pearson","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2382736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Qualitative Humanities research is perturbed by ethical review processes that routinely invoke epistemological assumptions skewed towards positivistic or deductive research, giving rise to several concerns, including increased risk aversion by University Research Ethics Committees (URECs) and the evaluation of qualitative research designs according to STEM standards.Methods/materials: This paper presents findings from an AHRC-funded research network built to better understand how research ethics frameworks and processes might be reformed to more appropriately fit ethically challenging qualitative methodologies.Results: There remains dissatisfaction with the current processes for awarding ethical approval and the subsequent management of ethical dimensions of projects. In spite of recent developments, UREC frameworks remain seriously flawed, with a wide divergence in the quality of expertise, procedures, and practices, leading to inconsistency in ethical approval awards.Conclusions: These factors downgrade UK Higher Education research power in the Humanities and undermine our commitments to the researched. We propose a series of recommendations for reform.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2382736","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Qualitative Humanities research is perturbed by ethical review processes that routinely invoke epistemological assumptions skewed towards positivistic or deductive research, giving rise to several concerns, including increased risk aversion by University Research Ethics Committees (URECs) and the evaluation of qualitative research designs according to STEM standards.

Methods/materials: This paper presents findings from an AHRC-funded research network built to better understand how research ethics frameworks and processes might be reformed to more appropriately fit ethically challenging qualitative methodologies.

Results: There remains dissatisfaction with the current processes for awarding ethical approval and the subsequent management of ethical dimensions of projects. In spite of recent developments, UREC frameworks remain seriously flawed, with a wide divergence in the quality of expertise, procedures, and practices, leading to inconsistency in ethical approval awards.

Conclusions: These factors downgrade UK Higher Education research power in the Humanities and undermine our commitments to the researched. We propose a series of recommendations for reform.

查看原文本刊更多论文

用于评估人文科学研究的伦理委员会框架和程序需要改革：英国范围内的网络咨询结果。

背景：定性人文学科研究受到伦理审查程序的干扰，因为伦理审查程序经常援引偏向实证主义或演绎研究的认识论假设，这引起了一些担忧，包括大学研究伦理委员会（UREC）的风险规避增加，以及根据科学、技术和工程学标准对定性研究设计进行评估：本文介绍了由英国皇家卫生研究委员会（AHRC）资助的一个研究网络的研究结果，该网络旨在更好地了解如何改革研究伦理框架和流程，使其更适合具有伦理挑战性的定性研究方法：结果：目前的伦理审批程序以及随后的项目伦理管理程序仍然令人不满。尽管最近取得了一些进展，UREC 框架仍然存在严重缺陷，在专业知识质量、程序和实践方面存在很大差异，导致伦理审批不一致：这些因素降低了英国高等教育在人文学科领域的研究实力，并损害了我们对被研究者的承诺。我们提出了一系列改革建议。

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

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.