Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes (Papers: Jessica Carniel et. al | December 2022)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Human Research Ethics on January 8, 2023
Keywords: Ethical review, Human research ethics, Institutional responsibilities, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On December, 25 2022

A woman growling is frustrated rage and clawing her hands towards us.

Abstract

For more than 50 years it has been observed that research ethics review and national human research ethics guidelines are not only unhelpful for humanities research, they are actually hostile to good research practice in the humanities.  This open access paper published in December 2022, posits that humanities researchers are excellently placed to lead calls to reform and improve the practice of research ethics review by research ethics committees.

Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) find these processes to be misaligned, if not outrightly obstructive to their research. This leads some scholars to advocate against HASS participation in institutional review processes as they currently stand, or in their entirety. While ethics review processes can present a challenge to HASS researchers, these are not insurmountable and, in fact, present opportunities for ethics review boards (ERBs) to mediate their practices to better attend to the concerns of the HASS disciplines. By highlighting the potential value of the ethics review process in recognising the nuances and specificity across different forms of research, this article explores the generative possibilities of greater collaboration between HASS researchers and ERBs. Remaining cognisant of the epistemic and methodological differences that mark different disciplinary formations in turn will benefit the ethical conduct of all researchers.
Carniel, J., Hickey, A., Southey, K., Brömdal, A., Crowley-Cyr, L., Eacersall, D., Farmer, W., Gehrmann, R., Machin, T., & Pillay, Y. (2022). The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes. Research Ethics, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221147202
Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470161221147202
Sage journal logo
The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes - Jessica Carniel, Andrew Hickey, Kim Southey, Annette Brömdal, Lynda Crowley-Cyr, Douglas Eacersall, Will Farmer, Richard Gehrmann, Tanya Machin, Yosheen Pillay, 2022
Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the hu...

Related Reading

Is it ethical to be friends with research participants? – LSE (Helen Kara | September 2022)

Can peer review survive social science’s paradigm wars? – Times Higher Education (Martyn Hammersley | July 2022)

(Australia) Australian scientists join outcry over humanities research veto – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | January 2022)

(Denmark) Danish researchers under attack ‘withdrawing from public debate’ – Times Higher Education (Ellie Bothwell | May 2021)

(Netherlands) Landmark research integrity survey finds questionable practices are surprisingly common – Science (Jop de Vrieze | July 2021)

Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences – Author Services (Resource: Taylor & Francis | September 2017)

(Germany) Top German geoscientist fired after police raid, faces allegations of financial crimes – Science (Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup | February 2021)

COPE Forum 2 June 2020: What does peer review mean in the arts, humanities and social sciences? – COPE (June 2020)

Open Peer Review in the Humanities – Scholarly Kitchen (Seth Denbo | March 2020)

(Australia) Outrage over minister cancelling research grants – University World News (Geoff Maslen | October 2018)

Hey, Computer Scientists! Stop Hating on the Humanities – Wired (Emma Pierson | April 2017)

Approval of the Resolution governing the ethics of research in social sciences, the humanities, and other disciplines that use methodologies characteristic of these areas: challenges and achievements (Iara Coelho Zito Guerriero 2016)

The Eclipse of ‘Human Subjects’ and the Rise of ‘Human Participants’ in Research Involving Humans. (Books: Igor Gontcharov 2016)

The Ethics Rupture: Exploring Alternatives to Formal Research-Ethics Review (Books: Will C. van den Hoonaard (editor) and Ann Hamilton 2016)

Institutional Review Blog – News and commentary about institutional review board oversight of the humanities and social sciences

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in