Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Variation in university research ethics review: Reflections following an inter-university study in England.Claudia Vadeboncoeur, Nick Townsend, Charlie Foster & Mark Sheehan - 2016 - Research Ethics 12 (4):217-233.
    Conducting large multi-site research within universities highlights inconsistencies between universities in approaches, requirements and responses of research ethics committees. Within the context of a social science research study, we attempted to obtain ethical approval from 101 universities across England to recruit students for a short online survey. We received varied responses from research ethics committees of different universities with the steps to obtaining ethics approval ranging from those that only required proof of approval from our home institution, to universities that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Lay REC members: patient or public?Kristina Staley - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (12):780-782.
    In practice, the role of lay members of research ethics committees (RECs) often involves checking the accessibility of written materials, checking that the practical needs of participants have been considered and ensuring that a lay summary of the research will be produced. In this brief report, I argue that all these tasks would be more effectively carried out through a process of patient involvement (PI) in research projects prior to ethical review. Involving patients with direct experience of the topic under (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • In defence of governance: ethics review and social research.Mark Sheehan, Michael Dunn & Kate Sahan - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (10):710-716.
    There is a growing body of literature that has sought to undermine systems of ethical regulation, and governance more generally, within the social sciences. In this paper, we argue that any general claim for a system of research ethics governance in social research depends on clarifying the nature of the stake that society has in research. We show that certain accounts of this stake—protecting researchers’ freedoms; ensuring accountability for resources; safeguarding welfare; and supporting democracy—raise relevant ethical considerations that are reasonably (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Finding New People to Join the REC: Commentary.Paula McGee - 2010 - Research Ethics 6 (1):20-21.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • We could be heroes: ethical issues with the pre-recruitment of research participants.David Hunter - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (7):557-558.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Getting the justification for research ethics review right.Michael Dunn - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):527-528.
    Dyck and Allen claim that the current model for mandatory ethical review of research involving human participants is unethical once the harms that accrue from the review process are identified. However, the assumptions upon which the authors assert that this model of research ethics governance is justified are false. In this commentary, I aim to correct these assumptions, and provide the right justificatory account of the requirement for research ethics review. This account clarifies why the subsequent arguments that Dyck and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations