Research ethics committees: values and power in higher education

The rise of research governance structures in universities has created huge disquiet amongst academic researchers. The unquestioning adoption of a medical model of ethical review based upon positivist methodological assumptions has created for many a mismatch between their own ongoing ethical research practice and the process of obtaining clearance from Research Ethics Committees (REC). This paper examines the issues that have contributed to dissatisfaction with the ethical review model that is prevalent within the modern university. Using examples from the authors’ own experiences, the dynamics of values, interests and power in research governance is examined from multiple perspectives including that of REC member and applicant; lecturer/student supervisor; researcher; and
university administrator. The paper reveals a rift between the values and objectives of the key players in research governance within the modern university and concludes by asking whether differences can be resolved so that a collaborative approach to ethical review may be incorporated into a renewed academic research culture. It is suggested that the alternative is increasing alienation from anything to do with ‘ethics’, with potentially serious consequences for the ethical standards of social research.

Consultation charges in Ireland deter a large proportion of patients from seeing the GP: results of a cross-sectional survey

To estimate the effect of a consultation charge on the health-seeking behaviour of patients.

Ethics in Media Practice

The ethics of collaborative practice in documentary filmmaking research

The place(s) of student voice in 14-19 education policy reform: reflections on consultation and participation

Certain policy areas with considerable impact on young people's educational experiences and achievements, notably assessment and qualifications, do not involve consultation with young people to any meaningful extent. Findings from a national study, which included focus groups with 243 students in the 14-19 phase, are presented with respect to student consultation and participation in such policy areas. A lack of meaningful consultation regarding what students see as ‘higher level’ policy agendas was found (such as qualifications provision, choice or structure). Students are therefore ‘voiceless’ in relation to major qualifications reforms