(Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance

Q2 Social Sciences
Sarah Clairmont, Emily Doerksen, Alize Ece Gunay, Phoebe Friesen
{"title":"(Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance","authors":"Sarah Clairmont,&nbsp;Emily Doerksen,&nbsp;Alize Ece Gunay,&nbsp;Phoebe Friesen","doi":"10.1002/eahr.60004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This article brings a philosophical perspective to bear on issues of research ethics governance as it is practiced and organized in Canada. Insofar as the processes and procedures that constitute research oversight are meant to ensure the ethical conduct of research, they are based on ideas or beliefs about what ethical research entails and about which processes will ensure the ethical conduct of research. These ideas and beliefs make up an epistemic infrastructure underlying Canada's system of research ethics governance, but, we argue, extensive efforts by community members to fill gaps in that system suggest that these ideas may be deficient. Our aim is to make these deficiencies explicit through critical analysis by briefly introducing the philosophical literature on epistemic injustice and ignorance, and by drawing on this literature and empirical evidence to examine how injustice and ignorance show up across three levels of research ethics governance: research ethics boards, regulations, and training. Following this critique, and drawing on insights from the same philosophical tradition, we highlight the work that communities across Canada have done to rewrite and rework how research ethics as a site of epistemic resistance is practiced.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"47 1","pages":"2-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11696195/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.60004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article brings a philosophical perspective to bear on issues of research ethics governance as it is practiced and organized in Canada. Insofar as the processes and procedures that constitute research oversight are meant to ensure the ethical conduct of research, they are based on ideas or beliefs about what ethical research entails and about which processes will ensure the ethical conduct of research. These ideas and beliefs make up an epistemic infrastructure underlying Canada's system of research ethics governance, but, we argue, extensive efforts by community members to fill gaps in that system suggest that these ideas may be deficient. Our aim is to make these deficiencies explicit through critical analysis by briefly introducing the philosophical literature on epistemic injustice and ignorance, and by drawing on this literature and empirical evidence to examine how injustice and ignorance show up across three levels of research ethics governance: research ethics boards, regulations, and training. Following this critique, and drawing on insights from the same philosophical tradition, we highlight the work that communities across Canada have done to rewrite and rework how research ethics as a site of epistemic resistance is practiced.

加拿大科研伦理治理中的不公正与抵制。
这篇文章带来了哲学的角度来承担研究伦理治理的问题,因为它是在加拿大实践和组织。就构成研究监督的过程和程序而言,它们是为了确保研究的道德行为,它们是基于关于道德研究需要什么以及哪些过程将确保研究的道德行为的想法或信念。这些想法和信念构成了加拿大研究伦理治理体系的认知基础设施,但是,我们认为,社区成员为填补该体系中的空白所做的广泛努力表明,这些想法可能存在缺陷。我们的目标是通过批判性的分析,通过简要介绍关于认识上的不公正和无知的哲学文献,并利用这些文献和经验证据来研究不公正和无知是如何在研究伦理治理的三个层面上表现出来的:研究伦理委员会、法规和培训,从而明确这些缺陷。根据这一批评,并借鉴同一哲学传统的见解,我们强调了加拿大各地的社区所做的工作,以重写和重新设计如何将研究伦理作为认知抵抗的场所进行实践。
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
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
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