This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0309132508090475v1 33/1/46    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dyer, S. Articles by Demeritt, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Un-ethical review? Why it is wrong to apply the medical model of research governance to human geography

¹ Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
² Kings College London, Department of Geography, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

	Abstract

The Economic and Social Research Council, the body which funds much social science in the UK, recently imposed on UK social science a system of research ethics governance already well established in other areas of research and in much of the rest of the developed world. This system requires that research involving human subjects receive prior ethical approval from a committee made up of, typically, multidisciplinary researchers and lay people. Our aim in this paper is to prompt debate about the purpose and practice of such an anticipatory ethical review. We begin by describing the rich and varied ethical and political debates ongoing in human geography. We argue that these are, at best, ignored and, at worst, threatened by this system of ethical review by committee. We describe the emergence of these formal mechanisms of research governance and important differences between the ethical contexts, history, and demands of research in the medical and social sciences. The paper draws on empirical research investigating National Health Service (NHS) research ethics committees to propose three salutary lessons geographers would do well to consider from experience elsewhere with ethical review. We argue that in review by committee deliberations extend beyond the ethical to include the methodological, that the system is a self-perpetuating and increasingly rule-bound mechanism, and that despite a rhetoric of accountability it is a system as obscure to outsiders as professional ethics.

Key Words: ethical review, informed consent, research ethics, research ethics committees, research governance, standardization

First published on May 20, 2008, doi:10.1177/0309132508090475

Progress in Human Geography 2009;33:46.

A more recent version of this article appeared on February 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?