ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

International

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Dealing with “normal” misbehavior in science: Is gossip enough?0

Posted by Admin in Research Integrity on September 20, 2017 / Keywords: , , , ,
 

As scientists, whether in the natural or social sciences, we tend to be confident in the self-policing abilities of our disciplines to root out unethical behavior. In many countries, we have institutionalized procedures for dealing with egregious forms of misconduct in the forms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP).

But research is increasingly calling attention to more “everyday” forms of misconduct—modes of irresponsible (if not unethical) behavior, pertaining to how we conduct our research as well as our relationships with colleagues. These include, for example:

  • cutting corners and being sloppy in one’s research (which makes future replication difficult)
  • delaying reviews of a colleague’s work in order to beat them to publication
  • exploiting students
  • unfairly claiming authorship credit
  • misusing research funds
  • sabotaging colleagues, and so on.

Such behaviors don’t violate FFP, but nevertheless fall short of the professional standards we aspire to. They begin to shape the implicit norms we internalize about what it takes to become successful in our fields (i.e., the formal script may be that we are to give others their due credit, but “really” we know that winners need to play dirty). Further, such actions can foster experiences of injustice and exploitation that lead some of us to leave our professions altogether. They thus compromise the integrity of scientific research and can create the climate for more serious violations to occur.

Just because such forms of what DeVries, Anderson, and Martinson call “normal misbehavior” can’t be formally sanctioned, it doesn’t mean they go unnoticed. Rather, in the research that my colleagues and I conducted on scientists in several countries, we found such accounts to be commonplace. Why, then, the confidence in the self-policing abilities of our disciplines? The answer, we were surprised to find, was gossip.

Scientists regularly circulate information in their departments and subfields about those who violate scientific norms. Through such gossip, they try to warn one another about colleagues whose work one ought not to trust, as well as those with whom one should avoid working. The hope here is that the bad reputation generated by such gossip will negatively impact perpetrators and serve as a deterrent to others.

What we found, however, was that the same respondents would admit that many scientists in their fields managed to be quite successful in spite of a negative reputation. Some talked about stars in their disciplines who managed to regularly publish in top journals precisely because they cut corners, or managed to be highly prolific because they exploited students. Others feared that influential perpetrators could retaliate against challengers. Some others complained of “mafias” in their disciplines that controlled access to prestigious journals and grants. Still others didn’t want to develop a reputation as a troublemaker for challenging their colleagues.

Perhaps the strangest case we encountered was of a scientist at a highly reputed institution in India who was notorious for beating students with shoes if they made mistakes in the lab. Former students would try to warn incoming students through posters around campus, but this did little to hinder the flow of new students into the lab.

Our findings overall suggest that such gossip works as an effective deterrent only when targets of gossip are of lower status than perpetrators. For instance, gossip among senior scholars about the irresponsible behavior of a postdoc or junior faculty member can inhibit their hiring and promotion. However, the veracity of such gossip is hard to verify, and false rumors can destroy someone’s career. In one case we encountered, a scientist saw a colleague spread false gossip about a potential hire, but was unable to intervene in a timely manner to correct this rumor. Transgressors may also remain unaware of gossip, and thus may not be able to correct their behaviors. In cases where targets are of higher status, gossip seems little more than a means of venting frustration, with little effect on perpetrators. Overall, as a means of social control in the discipline, gossip is rather ineffective.

So why does all this matter?

The very prevalence of such gossip indicates that scientific communities still need to take more steps to improve the integrity of their organizations and fields, beyond simply sanctions for FFP. The content of such gossip should be important to leaders of scientific institutions because it can provide important access to rampant forms of irresponsible behavior that erode the integrity of scientific institutions. Obviously, such gossip can’t simply be taken at face value; investigation is needed to weed out false rumors. Institutions need to develop better channels to report questionable behavior and need to regularly analyze such reports for patterns that warrant attention.

What’s most crucial is that institutional leaders prioritize creating a climate that fosters prevention and transparency, encourages speaking up about such issues, and provides safety from potential retaliation. These are among the best practices for protecting whistleblowers, as identified by the Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee (WPAC) of the US Department of Labor. In addition to ethics training on issues related to FFP, the ongoing professionalization of scientists needs to include more overt discussion about

  • the implicit norms of success in the field
  • the prevalence and causes of burnout
  • how to productively address some of the more rampant forms of irresponsible behavior (such as the ones I listed earlier in this post), and
  • systemic issues, such as competitive pressures and structural incentives that enable the rationalization of irresponsible behavior

If such measures are implemented, we can significantly improve the ethical climates of our institutions and disciplines; reduce some of the attrition caused by institutional climates that tolerate (and even reward) such “normal misbehavior”; and help prevent the more egregious scandals that shake the public’s trust in science.

References

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly.  Nature, 435(7043), 737-738.
Chicago

Shinbrot, T. (1999). Exploitation of junior scientists must end. Nature, 399(6736), 521.

De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43-50.

Vaidyanathan, B., Khalsa, S., & Ecklund, E. H. (2016). Gossip as Social Control: Informal Sanctions on Ethical Violations in Scientific Workplaces. Social Problems, 63(4), 554-572.

Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee (WPAC). (2015). Best Practices for Protecting Whistleblowers and Preventing and Addressing Retaliation. https://www.whistleblowers.gov/wpac/WPAC_BPR_42115.pdf

Contributor
Dr. Brandon Vaidyanathan is Associate Professor of Sociology | The Catholic University of America | CUA Staff pagebrandonv@cua.edu

This post may be cited as:
Vaidyanathan B. (2017, 2o September 2017) Dealing with “normal” misbehavior in science: Is gossip enough? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/dealing-normal-misbehavior-science-gossip-enough

Strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios2

 

During the fall of 2013 and spring of 2014, I traveled to numerous universities across the United States and England to conduct in-depth interviews with physicists as part of the Ethics among Scientists in International Context Study, a project led by my colleague Elaine Howard Ecklund at Rice University(1). The study sought to find out how physicists approach ethical issues related to research integrity in their day-to-day work.

My colleagues and I began our interviews with a relatively straightforward question: “What does it mean to you to be a responsible scientist in your role as a researcher?” For many scientists, responsibility in research is a relatively black and white question: don’t falsify, don’t fabricate, and don’t plagiarize. And if one looks to the literature, scholarship and policy also tend to focus on these black and white instances of misbehavior because they are unambiguous and deserving of stern sanctions.

As our research unfolded, Ecklund and I began to question whether a black and white view of misconduct is overly simplistic. From a sociological perspective, whether scientists reach consensus about the meaning of unethical conduct in science is debatable because the same behavior in a given circumstance may be open to different ethical interpretations based on the statuses of the stakeholders involved and the intended and actual outcomes of the behavior. Our research ultimately demonstrated that the line separating legitimate and illegitimate behavior in science tends to be gray, rather than black and white—a concept we refer to as ethical ambiguity.

For the purpose of illustration, consider a scenario in which a scientist receives funding for one project and then uses a portion of that money to support a graduate student on a study unrelated to the grant. Many scientists would view this practice as a black and white instance of unethical conduct. But some scientists we interviewed view this an ethically gray scenario, indicating that the use of funds for reasons other than specified in a grant is justifiable if it means supporting the careers of their students or keeping their lab afloat. In these and other circumstances, scientists cope with ambiguity through decisions that emphasize being good over the “right” way of doing things.

What strategies help resolve these and other ethically ambiguous scenarios?

Frameworks for ethical decision-making offer some, but in my view limited, help. Kantian deontological theories assert that one should follow a priori moral imperatives related to duty or obligation. A deontologist would argue, for example, that a scientist has an obligation to acknowledge the origins of her work. And policies regarding plagiarism have a law-like quality. But how far back in the literature should one cite prior work? Deontology does not help us much in this example. Another framework, consequentialism, would suggest that in an ethically ambiguous scenario, a scientist should select the action that has the best outcomes for the most people. But like other individuals, scientists are limited in their ability to weigh the outcomes of their actions (particularly as it relates to the long-term implications of scientific research).

One ethical decision-making framework, virtue ethics, does offer some help in resolving ambiguity. Virtue ethics recognizes that ethical decision-making requires consideration of circumstances, situational factors, and one’s motivations and reasons for choosing an action, not just the action itself. It poses the question, “what is the ethically good action a practically wise person would take in this circumstance?” For individual scientists, this may require consulting with senior and trusted colleagues to think through such circumstances is always a valuable practice.

A pre-emptive strategy for helping scientists resolve ethically ambiguous scenarios is to create cultures in which ambiguity can be recognized and discussed. For their part, the physicists we spoke with do not view ethics training as an effective way to create such a culture. As one physicist we spoke with explained, “It’s the easy thing to say, oh make a course on it. Taking a physics course doesn’t make me a good physicist. Taking a safety course doesn’t make me safe. Taking an ethics course doesn’t make me ethical.”

There may be merit to this physicist’s point. Nevertheless, junior scientists must learn—likely through the watching, talking, and teaching that accompanies research within a lab—that the ethical questions that scientists encounter are more likely to involve ambiguous scenarios where the appropriate action is unclear than scenarios related to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. __

Contributor
David R. Johnson, a sociologist, is an assistant professor of higher education the University of Nevada, Reno, in the United States. His first book, A Fractured Profession: Commercialism and Conflict in Academic Science, is published by Johns Hopkins University Press.
davidrjohnson@unr.edu

This post may be cited as:
Johnson D. (2017, 21 June) Strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/strategies-resolving-ethically-ambiguous-scenarios

(1) (National Science Foundation grant # 1237737, Elaine Howard Ecklund PI, Kirstin RW Matthews and Steven Lewis, Co-PIs)

Research Ethics in the Philippines: a personal journey0

 

My recall of the earliest encounter I had with research ethics is when, as a newly appointed faculty member of the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the College of Medicine (CM) of the University of the Philippines (UP) and concurrent attending at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH), I rushed to the office of the ethics research committee (known as the Research Implementation and Development Office or RIDO) of CM before the end of office hours one Friday. In my hand was a letter, addressed to the then chairman requesting approval of a study I was about to conduct. Attached to the letter was a one page synopsis of the research protocol. I was fortunate enough to catch him on his way out of the office, and doubly lucky he agreed to quickly browse through the papers I pushed in front of him. He then instructed the office secretary to stamp the letter “APPROVED”, and proceeded to affix his signature. It was in the early 1990’s!

His stamp of approval went a long way towards legitimizing the outcome of my research. I was able to collect and isolate N. gonorrhoea from commercial sex workers in Manila and Cebu, freeze dried all 92, and transport them hand-carried to the laboratory of at the University of Washington. It turned out, almost all the isolates were resistant to the standard first line drug (ciprofloxacin) at that time. Interestingly, a few months before, my collaborator from the US walked into our office looking for someone to work with. Apparently, a US male citizen had been diagnosed to have ciprofloxacin resistant gonorrhea infection. He admitted to having paid sex in Manila and Cebu prior to flying back home. Fate would have it that I was in the office when my collaborator walked in. And since my sub-specialty in obstetrics and gynecology is in infectious disease, the rest was history. I am including this in my narrative because ordinarily, researches with no international collaboration and/or funding would not warrant a mandatory ethics research committee approval. If the process I went through at that time could be construed as a legitimate one today!

Soon after I finished the gonorrhea study, I found myself being appointed by our department chairman to be the representative to the same ethics research committee (RIDO)! By then, in the early years of 1990, all basic science departments of CM and all clinical departments of PGH appointed representatives to RIDO. Meetings were conducted almost monthly to discuss and evaluate research protocols of faculty members who cared to submit their protocols. In those early times, these usually were those with external funding such as clinical trials, or those with international collaborations. I seem to remember the chair of RIDO would present a brief summary of the protocol at hand for the consideration of the members present. If there were no major objections, the research protocol gets approved, and the study will proceed. There didn’t exist written guidelines and standard operating procedures for RIDO. That was in the later years of 1990 and early years of 2000.

When the chair of RIDO retired from the College of Medicine, she recommended me as her replacement. By then, the beginnings of guidelines and standard operating procedures have been put in place. The developments in the interest and commitment to research ethics were being fueled not only within the walls of the academe (CM, PGH and UP), but also in the scientific community. The creation of the National Institutes of Health in UP Manila, whose mandate is to spearhead research at par with the international community, played a big role in upgrading the standards of research, and along with it, compliance to international standards of conducting ethical review of research involving human participants. A Fogarty International grant to UP Manila, whose prime mover was Professor Leonardo D. de Castro, PhD of the College of Social Science and Philosophy of UP Diliman, made it possible to create training programs which empowered the academe in bioethics. In fact in the early years of 2000, a Diploma course in Bioethics was approved and offered through the collaborative efforts of UP Manila and Diliman campuses. Unwittingly, for what I consider to be totally less noble reasons, I took the Diploma course. My main reason was not to help promote research ethics specifically. It was really more for my professional development. At that time, I was already a tenured faculty member. But the trend in the academe was for younger members, even though not yet tenured, to proceed to obtain masteral and even doctoral degrees. My thought at that time was I didn’t want to be upended by younger colleagues. So I enrolled and finished the Diploma course in Bioethics. A year thereafter, the full Masteral course was approved and offered. I proceeded to re-enroll for the same main reason and motivation. It took me several years and 3 extensions of the maximum residency rules of the University before I was able to finish and defend my thesis, and get my Masteral degree in Bioethics!

The prime movers of the bioethics program UP Manila were from the College of Medicine headed jointly by Dra Marita Reyes and Dra Cecilia Tomas. Equal collaborators of the program were Professor Leonardo D. de Castro of the Department of Philosophy, College of Social Science and Philosophy in UP Diliman, among others. The multi-disciplinary collaboration made it possible for many others to establish the Social Medicine Unit (SMU) of the College of Medicine to administer to the MS Bioethics program. It also paved the way for the establishment of a coordinated and integrated system of research ethics review in UP Manila, called the UP Manila Research Ethics Board (UPMREB).

The UPMREB created several panels, each one practically a research ethics committee, with jurisdiction over various sectors of UP Manila: faculty of the College of Medicine (who conduct most of the basic and clinical trials); resident and fellow doctors of Philippine General Hospital; and faculty and students of the various other colleges. Using the same guidelines and standard operating procedures, all the panels of the UPMREB are able to review, approve and monitor all researches in UP Manila. It was also around this time, after my few years as chair of RIDO, that intense preparations were made for the accreditation of RIDO by the Forum for Ethics Research Committees in the Asia Pacific (FERCAP). With the efforts of Dra Evangeline Santos, professor of Ophthalmology and co-graduate of mine from the Diploma in Bioethics program, assisted by other staff of the College of Medicine, FERCAP accreditation was achieved. Subsequently, UPMREB and all its panels achieved the same accreditation.

In the meantime, a law (Republic Act No. 10532), called the Philippine National Health Research System (PNHRS) was enacted in May 2013 to coordinate and integrate all stakeholders in health research in the Philippines. It is through the force of this law that the scientific community outside the University through the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) of the Philippine government, in collaboration with the Department of Education and Culture through the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the Department of Health, asked the NIH of UP Manila to implement a Memorandum Order which mandates that all research involving human participants shall undergo review by accredited ethics research committees (by December 2015). The DOST, through the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD), designated the Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (PHREB) as the policy-making body with regards to the establishment, registration, accreditation and regulation of research ethics committees in the country. Henceforth, all academic institutions, all hospitals and health care facilities, and all entities doing health and health-related research involving human participants should submit their studies to PHREB-accredited research ethics committees for review, approval and monitoring. The main objectives are to assure that research participants are not harmed (but benefitted), and that research outcomes are credible.

The PHREB, under the chairmanship of Professor Leonardo D. De Castro, created two important committees: 1). Committee on Information Dissemination, Training and Advocacy (CIDTA); and 2). Committee on Standards and Accreditation (CSA). CIDTA was initially chaired by Dra Rosario Tan-Alora, professor of internal medicine, bioethics and former dean of the college of medicine in the University of Santo Tomas. I had the privilege of being a member of her committee, which conducted trainings for nearly all hospitals and academic institutions in the country. Trainings programs were on Basic Research Ethics, on Good Research Practice, and on Standard Operating Procedures. The objective was to enable participants to create and work in research ethics committees of their respective institutions, be they hospitals or academes. Very recently, Dra Alora decided to turn over the chairmanship of CIDTA to me, although she continues to be an invaluable member/mentor. And more recently, CIDTA is preparing to embark on including a Good Clinical Practice module among its training programs.

The other committee (CSA), initially chaired by Dra Cecilia Tomas, has been in charge of setting standards for research ethics committees all over the country, registering them, and assessing them for accreditation. Three levels of accreditation have been established by CSA: Level 1 are research ethics committees capable of reviewing all types of protocols, except clinical trials; Level 2 are research ethics committees capable of reviewing even clinical trials but not those for products intended for registration with the Philippine Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both committees had been busy the past 2 years. From a few accredited research ethics committees a couple of years ago, there are now 72 all over the country, many of them Level 3! (See http://ethics.healthresearch.ph for a complete listing)

The Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD), recognizing the existence of research projects whose proponents may not be affiliated with institutions with accredited research ethics committees, and in fact providing funds for some such projects, reactivated the National Ethics Committee (NEC). Chaired by Dra Marita Reyes, the NEC is essentially a research ethics committee composed of multi-sectoral recruited volunteers, myself recently included representing the medical field, which reviews research proposals referred to it by the Department of Health and PCHRD. In 2011, the PHREB published the National Ethical Guidelines for Health Research, providing written, country-specific guidelines on the ethical conduct of researches on various fields. (See nec.pchrd.dost.gov.ph). Currently, a technical working group headed by Dra Marita V.T. Reyes, with me as one of the members, is in the final stages of updating the guidelines for 2017!

My personal journey in the world of research ethics continues in my newly-assigned tasks of handling classes in the MS Bioethics graduate program, specifically handling Research Ethics and Research Ethics Review classes. From the one-man, practically ambush approval of my very first international research collaboration, to the current legislated and well-established research ethics system, I have been a privileged witness, albeit by twists of fate more than intent design on my part in many instances, to the evolving developmental history of research ethics in the Philippines. This narration is by no means the complete accurate picture. It is a humble and modest attempt to share a part of my career in the academe as a professional doctor taking care of patients, teaching younger colleagues, doing research on the side, and performing administrative functions.

I am grateful to Dr Gary Allen for the opportunity.

Submitted 16 April 2017.
Revised 24 April 2017 after obtaining permission (and more accurate inputs) from the persons whose names were included in the article.

Contributor
Ricardo Manalastas, Jr., MD, MSc (Bioethics) is a professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Infectious Diseases and Bioethics at the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines, Manila, and Attending obstetrician gynecologist at the Philippine General Hospital.
He can be reached by email at rmmanalastasmd@me.com  | rmmanalastasmd@yahoo.com

This post may be cited as:
Manalastas R. (2017, 24 April) Research Ethics in the Philippines: a personal journey. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/uncategorized/research-ethics-philippines-personal-journey

Ethical Self-Assessment: Excellence in Reflexivity or Corporatisation Gone Mad?0

 

Research ethics and integrity have always been at the forefront of my work, not only because the issues which I explore (self-injury, disability, gender and sexuality) are personal, sensitive and often stigmatised topics, but also because as a disabled, feminist researcher I have first-hand experience of the ways in which power, inequality and appropriation are often enmeshed in research methods and outputs. Conventional ethical protocols which originate in medical guidelines struggle to fully grasp and incorporate such ethical issues, as well as the dilemmas which emerge from social research more broadly. Ethical protocols rarely prompt a researcher to critically examine how issues such as power and marginalisation play out in social research, or even how to address specific issues emerging from their own project, such as how to respond to requests for specific information as in Anne Oakley’s (1981) now infamous research with first time mothers. Ethical review more often consists of tick-box protocols, which ultimately function to restrict who and what can be researched rather than to promote ethical skills, competencies and practices (see Inckle, 2015).

This mismatch between my own ethical sensibilities and the conventions of research ethics were so vast that, during my PhD research, I struggled to conceive how any research could ever be fully ethical and I became stymied with anxiety and doubt (see Inckle, 2007). Happily, since then, I have joined a research ethics committee, taught research methods and ethics, conducted, supervised and even participated in social research. As a result, I have become more reconciled with (although no less sensitive to) the possibilities of research being both an ethical and positive experience for all those involved – albeit when based on a reflexive, ethical sensibilities rather than rigid, pre-defined protocols.

Nonetheless, when I joined my current institution and discovered that ethical review operated on a self-assessment basis http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/researchAndDevelopment/researchDivision/policyAndEthics/ethicsGuidanceAndForms.aspx my first response was to laugh, a lot. Isn’t the whole point of ethical review, I chortled, to provide oversight and accountability via external reviewer/s? How does simply completing a self-assessment form ensure ethical competency? Isn’t this just another example of the corporatized university gone mad, where academics take on more and more administrative duties in a role of ever-increasing responsibilities and ever-diminishing autonomy?

However, with time, reflection and some experience – all of which are important ethical competencies! – my perspective on ‘ethical self-assessment’ has radically shifted. Firstly, self-assessment is not really a full description of this ethical review process. Student researchers require formal ethical validation from their supervisor, who acts as a proxy for the institution in granting approval and, in the case of staff research projects, the line-manager takes on this role. Furthermore, in certain situations, such as when required by an external funder or participating body, the researcher is compelled to present their work before a university ethics committee proper.

Secondly, while the ethical ‘self-assessment’ form requires the respondent to answer a number of fairly standard questions about their research project – including, whether deception will be used, are the participants ‘vulnerable’, will sensitive/personal issues be explored – the process nonetheless allows for nuanced and discipline-specific accountability. For example, rather than a ‘yes’ to any of these questions rendering the research unethical and in need of redesign, the researcher is invited to complete another section of the form providing further information which contextualises the project and outlines protective protocols. What is most important, is that these justifications and protections are reviewed in a discipline specific context, thus moving the entire process away from universalised assumptions and locating it within specific field of the researcher. For example, in a medicalised context a non-clinician interviewing those who are defined as ‘vulnerable’ by virtue of their experience of disability and/or self-injury would be considered highly problematic. Similarly, an insider-researcher with shared experience of such a ‘health’ or disability experience would be considered compromised in their role and unable to ‘objectively’ and reliably conduct the research. However, from a social sciences (and rights-based) perspective, using these kind of labels to position certain individuals as compromised and/or inadequate researchers is in itself unethical and discriminatory.

Indeed, ethical ‘self-assessment’ has proven beneficial for my current research regarding the health, identity and social impacts of cycling for people with physical disabilities, including its impacts on their experience of themselves as able/disabled. In a standardised context it is likely that a number of ethical problems would be highlighted with this project: exploring sensitive issues amongst a ‘vulnerable’ group; an insider-researcher (I am a disabled cyclist); and quite possibly the assumption that the topic is so anomalous as to not justify the research at all – it is a commonplace assumption (especially among medical professionals) that people with physical disabilities cannot cycle, despite it being significantly easier than walking or wheelchair propulsion for many disabled people http://www.wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/. However, ethical ‘self-assessment’ enabled me to position myself, my research participants and the value of the research within a critical social science and rights-based perspective which locates disability as a social identity rather than an individual vulnerability. However, this does not mean that I have avoided thinking clearly and carefully about the ethical protocols. I have taken time to consider the research, it’s potential impacts at the individual, social and policy levels, and to work to ensure that it is a positive and empowering experience for all those involved (including me). I have also developed my information, consent and researcher commitment forms in line with best practice in feminist and sensitive research (Byrne, 2000; Inckle, 2007; 2015).

Overall then, my experience suggests that my initial incredulous laughter at the thought of ethical self-assessment was misplaced. In an era of increasingly regimented ethical protocols which unilaterally apply limited, discipline-specific assumptions across the entire research community, and thereby curb the possibilities of who can conduct research, about which topics and with whom, then discipline-specific ethical self-assessment provides a new opportunity for contextualised ethical review. This kind of approach, coupled with a nuanced, reflexive approach to the development of ethical competencies could offer a significant way forward for ethical review in the social sciences.

References

Byrne, A (2000) Researching One An-Other, pp.140-166 in A Byrne and R Lentin (eds) (Re)Searching Women: Feminist Research Methods in the Social Sciences in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

Inckle, K (2015) Promises, Promises… Lessons in Research Ethics from the Belfast Project and ‘The Rape Tape’ Case, Sociological Research Online 20(1): 6 http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/1/6.html

Inckle, K (2007) Writing on the Body? Thinking Through Gendered Embodiment and Marked Flesh. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Oakley, A (1981) Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms, pp.30-61 in H Roberts (ed) Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge.

Contributor
Dr Kay Inckle
Course Convener in Sociology
LSE
Blog/Bio | K.A.Inckle@lse.ac.uk

This post may be cited as:
Inckle K. (2017, 24 April) Ethical Self-Assessment: Excellence in Reflexivity or Corporatisation Gone Mad?. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/ethical-self-assessment-excellence-reflexivity-corporatisation-gone-mad

0