IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rsocec/v74y2016i1p33-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A discipline-relevant conceptual framework for research ethics review in economic sciences

Author

Listed:
  • M. van Heerden
  • R.G. Visagie
  • J.S. Wessels

Abstract

This article aims to contribute to the discourse on the growing frustration amongst researchers about compulsory institutional research ethics review. The question that directs this article is to what extent research in the economic sciences should be subjected to the widely used biomedical model of research ethics review. A subsequent question is whether a discipline-relevant model would not be more appropriate for such review. To this end, a case study of the 2012 volume of the journal Review of Social Economy was selected for a systematic content analysis of the articles reporting on economics research. The eligibility criteria most commonly used by research ethics committees have been applied in this analysis. The study has shown that although blanket exemption for research in the economic sciences might not be appropriate, a discipline-relevant risk assessment framework for research involving human subjects in economics research is necessary. This article argues for a reasonable and non-frustrating research ethics review process applicable to the level of the potential risk to harm human subjects.

Suggested Citation

  • M. van Heerden & R.G. Visagie & J.S. Wessels, 2016. "A discipline-relevant conceptual framework for research ethics review in economic sciences," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 74(1), pages 33-52, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:74:y:2016:i:1:p:33-52
    DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2015.1125632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00346764.2015.1125632
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00346764.2015.1125632?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:rsocec:v:74:y:2016:i:1:p:33-52. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRSE20 .

    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.