IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v16y2011i2p49-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulating Social Research: Exploring the Implications of Extending Ethical Review Procedures in Social Research

Author

Listed:
  • Margaret Melrose

Abstract

Reflecting on my experience of leading several qualitative research projects to investigate ‘sensitive’ topics with potentially ‘vulnerable’ participants, this paper considers the impact and consequences of increased ethical regulation in relation to my own research field and social research more generally. It argues that extending ethical regulation threatens social research in general, and specifically, threatens the study of ‘sensitive’ topics with ‘vulnerable’ populations. The consequences of increased ethical regulation may contradict its intention and place ‘vulnerable’ participants at greater risk than ‘sensitive’ research undertaken with such groups in earlier historical periods. The paper urges social researchers to act collectively, to engage with ethical regulatory regimes in order to challenge the threats they pose to scholarship, and by doing so, defend the value of social research for advancing knowledge so that our scholarship might better serve the populations we study.

Suggested Citation

  • Margaret Melrose, 2011. "Regulating Social Research: Exploring the Implications of Extending Ethical Review Procedures in Social Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 16(2), pages 49-58, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:16:y:2011:i:2:p:49-58
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.2377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.2377
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.2377?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martyn Hammersley, 2010. "Creeping Ethical Regulation and the Strangling of Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 123-125, November.
    2. Sara Scott, 1998. "Here be Dragons: Researching the Unbelievable, Hearing the Unthinkable. A Feminist Sociologist in Uncharted Territory," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 3(3), pages 98-109, September.
    3. Kate Reed, 2010. "The Spectre of Research Ethics and Governance and the ESRC's 2010 FRE: Nowhere Left to Hide?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 120-122, November.
    4. Julie Kent & Emma Williamson & Trudy Goodenough & Richard Ashcroft, 2002. "Social Science Gets the Ethics Treatment: Research governance and ethical review," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 7(4), pages 1-15, November.
    5. Ross Coomber, 2002. "Signing your life away?: Why Research Ethics Committees (REC) shouldn't always require written confirmation that participants in research have been informed of the aims of a study and their rights - t," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 7(1), pages 218-221, March.
    6. Michael Rustin, 2010. "The Risks of Assessing Ethical Risks," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 131-134, November.
    7. Carole Truman, 2003. "Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 8(1), pages 70-80, February.
    8. Liz Stanley & Sue Wise, 2010. "The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: Fit for Research Purpose?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 106-115, November.
    9. Kate Reed, 2007. "Bureaucracy and Beyond: The Impact of Ethics and Governance Procedures on Health Research in the Social Sciences," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(5), pages 80-84, September.
    10. John Holmwood, 2010. "Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and the Creaking Piers of Peer Review," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 116-119, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hélder Raposo & Sara Melo & Catarina Egreja, 2022. "Data Protection in Sociological Health Research: A Critical Narrative about the Challenges of a New Regulatory Landscape," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(4), pages 1060-1076, December.
    2. Liz Stanley & Sue Wise, 2010. "The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: Fit for Research Purpose?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 106-115, November.
    3. Nathan Emmerich, 2012. "Book Review: Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research (Morality and Society Series)," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 17(2), pages 1-3, May.
    4. Kate Reed, 2007. "Bureaucracy and Beyond: The Impact of Ethics and Governance Procedures on Health Research in the Social Sciences," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(5), pages 80-84, September.
    5. Sara Scott, 1999. "Dancing to Different Tunes: A Reply to Responses to here be Dragons," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 4(2), pages 50-53, July.
    6. Smith, Shirley M. & Dorward, Peter T., 2014. "Nationalised large-scale mining, trade unions and community representation: Perspectives from Northern Madagascar," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 31-41.
    7. Guta, Adrian & Nixon, Stephanie A. & Wilson, Michael G., 2013. "Resisting the seduction of “ethics creep”: Using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 301-310.
    8. Miller, Tina & Boulton, Mary, 2007. "Changing constructions of informed consent: Qualitative research and complex social worlds," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2199-2211, December.
    9. Reed, Kate & Ferazzoli, Maria Teresa & Whitby, Elspeth, 2021. "“Why didn't we do it”? Reproductive loss and the problem of post-mortem consent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    10. Rose Wiles & Graham Crow & Vikki Charles & Sue Heath, 2007. "Informed Consent and the Research Process: Following Rules or Striking Balances?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(2), pages 99-110, March.
    11. Smith, Shirley M. & Shepherd, Derek D. & Dorward, Peter T., 2012. "Perspectives on community representation within the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative: Experiences from south-east Madagascar," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 241-250.
    12. Kate Reed, 2010. "The Spectre of Research Ethics and Governance and the ESRC's 2010 FRE: Nowhere Left to Hide?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 120-122, November.
    13. Nathan Emmerich, 2016. "Reframing Research Ethics: Towards a Professional Ethics for the Social Sciences," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 21(4), pages 16-29, November.
    14. Julia Downes & Liz Kelly & Nicole Westmarland, 2014. "Ethics in Violence and Abuse Research - a Positive Empowerment Approach," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(1), pages 29-41, February.
    15. Carole Truman, 2003. "Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 8(1), pages 70-80, February.
    16. Virginia Mapedzahama & Tinashe Dune, 2017. "A Clash of Paradigms? Ethnography and Ethics Approval," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, March.
    17. Andrew Upton, 2011. "In Testing Times: Conducting an Ethnographic Study of UK Animal Rights Protesters," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 16(4), pages 13-21, December.
    18. Rose Wiles & Amanda Coffey & Judy Robison & Jon Prosser, 2012. "Ethical Regulation and Visual Methods: Making Visual Research Impossible or Developing Good Practice?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 17(1), pages 3-12, February.
    19. Bama Andika Putra, 2023. "Complexities of the Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative International Relations Research: Research Subjects, Ethical Codes, and Constructing Qualitative Rigor," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, March.
    20. Annie Huntington, 1999. "A Critical Response to Sara Scott's ‘Here be Dragons: Researching the Unbelievable, Hearing the Unthinkable. A Feminist Sociologist in Uncharted Territory’," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 4(1), pages 65-70, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:16:y:2011:i:2:p:49-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.