Ethical review of applications to conduct research projects continues to be a focus of scrutiny and controversy. We argue that attention to the actual practices of ethical review has the potential to inform debate. We explore how research ethics committees (RECs) establish their position and authority through the texts they use in their correspondence with applicants. Using a discursive analysis applied to 260 letters, we identify four positions of particular interest: RECs positioned as disinterested and responsible; as representing the interests (...) of potential participants; as facilitating ethically sound, high-quality research; and as engaged in dialogue. These positions are used strategically to deflect criticism or complaint. This analysis has implications for reducing contestation between researchers and RECs, suggesting that more dialogic rather than hierarchical approaches to positioning might be helpful. (shrink)

Conducting nursing research in long-term care facilities and with samples of older people requires careful attention to research ethics and the ethical conduct of the study. This review analysed the research ethics of the empirical studies that focus on older people in long-term care settings as research participants. Articles (n = 66) focussing on older people in long-term care settings as research informants were retrieved from an electronic search of MEDLINE (1990 to February 2012) using the MESH terms ‘Nursing’ AND (...) ‘Long-term care’ (578 citations) and ‘Institutionalization’ and ‘Nursing’ (89 citations). Ethical approval procedure was reported in more than half of the studies (58%) and informed consent in two-thirds of the studies (70%). Ethical issues in data collection were described in most of the articles, but only a few reported ethics in problem statement, reporting or presenting implications. There is a need to focus on reporting research ethics and procedures in empirical research on vulnerable people. (shrink)