The case for ethics review in the social sciences: Drawing from practice at Queen Mary University of London

Research Ethics 10 (2):69-76 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article responds directly to an article published in Research Ethics in 2011 where Schrag argued against ethics review for social science and humanities research. He argued that review committees offer solutions in search of a problem, impose silly restrictions and apply inappropriate principles. He suggests that review committees typically lack appropriate expertise and argued that the process harms the innocent. This article refutes these claims and offers a case study of the ethical review process at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) to offer counter claims. The discussion highlights the way in which the QMUL process is sensitized to the challenges posed by social science and humanities research and is a process that, rather than focusing upon avoiding harm, emphasizes notions of care to both participants and researchers

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,891

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A decent proposal: ethical review of clinical research.Donald Evans - 1996 - New York, N.Y.: Wiley. Edited by Martyn Evans.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-06-25

Downloads
30 (#520,056)

6 months
5 (#837,449)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?