IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v7y2017i1p2158244017697167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Clash of Paradigms? Ethnography and Ethics Approval

Author

Listed:
  • Virginia Mapedzahama
  • Tinashe Dune

Abstract

Obtaining ethics approval from university ethics committees is an important part of the research process in Australia and internationally. However, for researchers engaging in ethnographic work, obtaining ethics approval can (re)present significant hurdles to overcome in planning and facilitating a research project. In this article, we discuss potential challenges of reconciling the differences between institutional ethical review standards and the reality of ethnographic research. To do so, we reflect on our own experiences seeking ethics approval for a study on racialized visibility in rural nursing and another on the experiences of gender and sexuality diverse older women. We focus on two particular queries from ethics committees that reaffirm, for us, the incompatibility of biomedically informed ethics guidelines for naturalistic, ethnographic research. The article draws on four major points of contention regarding ethical approval processes designed for biomedical research and applied to social research. With respect to social research, these are (a) the associated risks, (b) predictive informed consent, (c) the power held by social researchers, and (d) biomedical emphasis on distance and universalism within the research relationship. This article suggests a reformulation of ethics guidelines and structures such that ethics committees are better able to engage with ethnographic (and other social) research. Although these debates and structural changes may not be relevant for all social or ethnographic research, exploring these ethical difficulties is paramount to redefining expectations and the positivist standards upon which social research is often measured.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginia Mapedzahama & Tinashe Dune, 2017. "A Clash of Paradigms? Ethnography and Ethics Approval," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:7:y:2017:i:1:p:2158244017697167
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244017697167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244017697167
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244017697167?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oeye, Christine & Bjelland, Anne Karen & Skorpen, Aina, 2007. "Doing participant observation in a psychiatric hospital-- Research ethics resumed," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2296-2306, December.
    2. Julie Kent & Emma Williamson & Trudy Goodenough & Richard Ashcroft, 2002. "Social Science Gets the Ethics Treatment: Research governance and ethical review," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 7(4), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Boulton, Mary & Parker, Michael, 2007. "Informed consent in a changing environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2187-2198, December.
    4. Murphy, Elizabeth & Dingwall, Robert, 2007. "Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2223-2234, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Melissa J. Bloomer & Maggie Doman & Ruth Endacott, 2013. "How the observed create ethical dilemmas for the observers: Experiences from studies conducted in clinical settings in the UK and Australia," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 410-414, December.
    2. Smith, Shirley M. & Dorward, Peter T., 2014. "Nationalised large-scale mining, trade unions and community representation: Perspectives from Northern Madagascar," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 31-41.
    3. Hélder Raposo & Sara Melo & Catarina Egreja, 2022. "Data Protection in Sociological Health Research: A Critical Narrative about the Challenges of a New Regulatory Landscape," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(4), pages 1060-1076, December.
    4. Putniņa, Aivita, 2013. "Bioethics and power: Informed consent procedures in post-socialist Latvia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 340-344.
    5. Swallow, Julia, 2017. "Expectant futures and an early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: Knowing and its consequences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 57-64.
    6. Guta, Adrian & Nixon, Stephanie A. & Wilson, Michael G., 2013. "Resisting the seduction of “ethics creep”: Using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 301-310.
    7. Trondsen, Marianne & Sandaunet, Anne-Grete, 2009. "The dual role of the action researcher," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 13-20, February.
    8. Smith, Shirley M. & Shepherd, Derek D. & Dorward, Peter T., 2012. "Perspectives on community representation within the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative: Experiences from south-east Madagascar," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 241-250.
    9. Liz Stanley & Sue Wise, 2010. "The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: Fit for Research Purpose?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 106-115, November.
    10. Janet Boddy, 2014. "Research across cultures, within countries: Hidden ethics tensions in research with children and families?," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 14(1), pages 91-103, January.
    11. Kate Reed, 2010. "The Spectre of Research Ethics and Governance and the ESRC's 2010 FRE: Nowhere Left to Hide?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 120-122, November.
    12. Burgess, Michael M., 2007. "Proposing modesty for informed consent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2284-2295, December.
    13. Chiumento, Anna & Rahman, Atif & Frith, Lucy, 2020. "Writing to template: Researchers’ negotiation of procedural research ethics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    14. Kelli Innes & Doug Elliott & Virginia Plummer & Debra Jackson, 2018. "Emergency department waiting room nurses in practice: An observational study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1402-1411, April.
    15. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.
    16. Parker, Michael, 2007. "Ethnography/ethics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2248-2259, December.
    17. Mohajan, Haradhan, 2020. "Quantitative Research: A Successful Investigation in Natural and Social Sciences," MPRA Paper 105149, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Nov 2020.
    18. Kingori, Patricia, 2013. "Experiencing everyday ethics in context: Frontline data collectors perspectives and practices of bioethics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 361-370.
    19. Margaret Melrose, 2011. "Regulating Social Research: Exploring the Implications of Extending Ethical Review Procedures in Social Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 16(2), pages 49-58, June.
    20. Julia Downes & Liz Kelly & Nicole Westmarland, 2014. "Ethics in Violence and Abuse Research - a Positive Empowerment Approach," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(1), pages 29-41, February.

    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:sae:sagope:v:7:y:2017:i:1:p:2158244017697167. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.