IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v98y2013icp311-318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local shaping of ethical review practices

Author

Listed:
  • Jaspers, Patricia
  • Houtepen, Rob
  • Horstman, Klasien

Abstract

Since ethical review practice has developed in relation to specific regulatory regimes and local contexts, it cannot be understood without paying attention to the institutional context of ethical review practices. We believe the tendency towards strong central governance and standardization in ethical review implies a lack of understanding of how specific local institutional contexts actually affect ethical review practices. Our question is: “How do local institutional contexts relate to the way REC's shape their formal mandate, and what are the implications for research governance?” To get in-depth insights in how REC's shape their formal mandates in every-day practice, we did a qualitative ethnographic-sociological study of three Dutch REC's in different contexts: an academic context, a care context and a commercial context. In analyzing these three REC's we paid attention to the procedures operative in REC practices, the cultures and everyday experiences of REC members, the scientific, social and financial resources that are available to REC's, and the evaluative perspective REC's employ. We conclude that specific local, institutional contexts offer valuable resources for ethical review. To track this, insight into the institutional configuration as a whole is necessary. Variations in the ways REC's shape their formal mandate should not be regarded problematic, but rather as fruitful opportunities for public learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaspers, Patricia & Houtepen, Rob & Horstman, Klasien, 2013. "Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local shaping of ethical review practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 311-318.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:98:y:2013:i:c:p:311-318
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613003213
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.043?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berg, Marc, 1997. "Problems and promises of the protocol," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1081-1088, April.
    2. Wehrens, Rik & Bal, Roland, 2012. "Health programs struggling with complexity: A case study of the Dutch ‘PreCare’ project," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 274-282.
    3. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clapp, Justin T. & Gleason, Katharine A. & Joffe, Steven, 2017. "Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 25-33.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    2. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Brownlie, Julie & Howson, Alexandra, 2006. "'Between the demands of truth and government': Health practitioners, trust and immunisation work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 433-443, January.
    4. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    5. Barry Pemberton, 2017. "Effective Regulation and Support to Economic Growth: Are These Aims Mutually Exclusive in the Regulation of the UK’s Nuclear Industry?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 429-450, September.
    6. Ouart, Lydia-Maria, 2010. "„Umrechnen auf täglich“: wie in Pflegegutachten Zahlen entstehen," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 135-165.
    7. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    8. Moes, Floortje & Houwaart, Eddy & Delnoij, Diana & Horstman, Klasien, 2020. "Questions regarding ‘epistemic injustice’ in knowledge-intensive policymaking: Two examples from Dutch health insurance policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    9. Aurélien Goutsmedt & Francesco Sergi & François Claveau & Clément Fontan, 2023. "The Different Paths of Central Bank Scientization: The Case of the Bank of England," Working Papers hal-04267004, HAL.
    10. Reich, Adam, 2012. "Disciplined doctors: The electronic medical record and physicians' changing relationship to medical knowledge," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(7), pages 1021-1028.
    11. Abby Kinchy, 2010. "Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 505-517, December.
    12. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    13. Åse Gornitzka & Cathrine Holst, 2015. "The Expert-Executive Nexus in the EU: An Introduction," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-12.
    14. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    15. Thomas V Maher & Charles Seguin & Yongjun Zhang & Andrew P Davis, 2020. "Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    16. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    17. Bauer, Anja & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2019. "Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 32-41.
    18. Nicola da Schio & Bas van Heur, 2022. "Resistance is in the air: From post-politics to the politics of expertise," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(3), pages 592-610, May.
    19. John Martyn Chamberlain, 2010. "Portfolio-Based Performance Appraisal for Doctors: A Case of Paperwork Compliance," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(1), pages 68-76, February.
    20. René Kemp & Jan Rotmans, 2009. "Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 303-322, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:98:y:2013:i:c:p:311-318. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.