IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v7y2002i4p1-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Science Gets the Ethics Treatment: Research governance and ethical review

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Kent
  • Emma Williamson
  • Trudy Goodenough
  • Richard Ashcroft

Abstract

The paper examines the current provision for ethical review within the social sciences and considers how existent structures could be improved to protect human research subjects in accordance with international guidelines and regulation. This paper examines the current regulation of social science in the form of professional guidelines, peer review, funding application procedures and steering/advisory groups, and compares these processes with the independent ethical review currently required for health research. This paper also addresses the concepts of ‘risk’ and regulation by comparing the provision of review processes for health and non-health based research. The authors question the distinctions made between different types of medical research which represent epidemiological research, for example, as non-intrusive thus creating a hierarchy of research which results in social science researchers slipping through the ethical review net.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:7:y:2002:i:4:p:1-15
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.755
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.755?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. Ashcroft, Richard, 2002. "Commentary: Biomedical research, trade policy and international health: beyond medical ethics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(7), pages 1143-1144, April.
    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. Ringheim, Karin, 1995. "Ethical issues in social science research with special reference to sexual behaviour research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(12), pages 1691-1697, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Virginia Mapedzahama & Tinashe Dune, 2017. "A Clash of Paradigms? Ethnography and Ethics Approval," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, March.
    10. 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. 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.
    2. Carole Truman, 2003. "Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 8(1), pages 70-80, February.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ethics; Regulation; Research; Review; Risk;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:7:y:2002:i:4:p:1-15. 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.