IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v7y2002i1p218-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 - the case of criminal populations. (Commentary)

Author

Listed:
  • Ross Coomber

Abstract

This brief commentary discusses the problematic incursion of Research Ethics Committees on social research, particularly on those groups who wish (and/or indeed it is vital for their safety) to remain anonymous. It is argued that REC's, often ignorant of social science methodology, commonly attempt to impose restrictions on research and researchers that contradict their own ethical guidelines and expose them to unreasonable risk. It is further pointed out that REC's are as yet not fully established within all UK institutions but fear of litigation will mean that those who do not already have them fully in place either have some form of REC in embryonic structure or are looking to implement REC's in the near future. It is in this context that it is argued we as social scientists should be helping to actively shape the workings of incumbent and emerging REC's in order to protect research, researchers, research participants and the integrity of what REC's actually do.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:7:y:2002:i:1:p:218-221
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.678
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.678?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Carole Truman, 2003. "Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 8(1), pages 70-80, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    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:7:y:2002:i:1:p:218-221. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.