IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v12y2007i5p80-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucracy and Beyond: The Impact of Ethics and Governance Procedures on Health Research in the Social Sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Reed

Abstract

This piece has been written in response to a recent article published in the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) which exposed the red tape restricting health research in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Whilst the THES article was critical of NHS ethical review and research governance, it still views a streamlined version of the process as necessary for the protection of researchers and respondents. Drawing on the recent experience of applying for ethical approval and research governance for a qualitative study on gender and genetics, this paper examines the review process and the restrictive paperwork and procedures that surround it, focusing in particular on the impact this has on social science research. The argument will be put forward that while all research, whether clinical or social, is hampered by the bureaucracy surrounding the review process, social research is further alienated by it. This is because the paperwork and processes involved are set up to evaluate clinical, not social, research. Furthermore, the process is caught up in a culture of fear that breeds mistrust towards ‘outsiders’ wishing to conduct research in the NHS. The revision of NHS ethical review has to go further than mere bureaucratic streamlining - it needs to be made more relevant and accessible to health researchers working across a range of disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Reed, 2007. "Bureaucracy and Beyond: The Impact of Ethics and Governance Procedures on Health Research in the Social Sciences," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(5), pages 80-84, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:12:y:2007:i:5:p:80-84
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.1627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.1627
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.1627?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. 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.
    2. Ross Coomber, 2002. "Signing your life away?: Why Research Ethics Committees (REC) shouldn't always require written confirmation that participants in research have been informed of the aims of a study and their rights - t," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 7(1), pages 218-221, March.
    3. Rose Wiles & Graham Crow & Vikki Charles & Sue Heath, 2007. "Informed Consent and the Research Process: Following Rules or Striking Balances?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(2), pages 99-110, March.
    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. Nathan Emmerich, 2012. "Book Review: Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965-2009," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 17(2), pages 1-3, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Reed, Kate & Ferazzoli, Maria Teresa & Whitby, Elspeth, 2021. "“Why didn't we do it”? Reproductive loss and the problem of post-mortem consent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    5. 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.
    6. John S. McKenzie, 2009. "‘You Don't Know How Lucky you are to be Here!’: Reflections on Covert Practices in an Overt Participant Observation Study," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(2), pages 60-69, March.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Brian Pickering, 2021. "Trust, but Verify: Informed Consent, AI Technologies, and Public Health Emergencies," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, May.
    10. Carole Truman, 2003. "Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 8(1), pages 70-80, February.
    11. Virginia Mapedzahama & Tinashe Dune, 2017. "A Clash of Paradigms? Ethnography and Ethics Approval," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, March.
    12. Rose Wiles & Graham Crow & Vikki Charles & Sue Heath, 2007. "Informed Consent and the Research Process: Following Rules or Striking Balances?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(2), pages 99-110, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Rose Wiles & Amanda Coffey & Judy Robison & Jon Prosser, 2012. "Ethical Regulation and Visual Methods: Making Visual Research Impossible or Developing Good Practice?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 17(1), pages 3-12, February.
    15. Hayley Davies, 2008. "Reflexivity in Research Practice: Informed Consent with Children at School and at Home," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 13(4), pages 17-30, July.
    16. 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.

    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:socres:v:12:y:2007:i:5:p:80-84. 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.