Hybrid design, systemic rigidity: Institutional dynamics in human research oversight
Author
Abstract
New governance scholars see hybrid regulation as a means for achieving regulatory flexibility and responsiveness. The US system for overseeing human subjects research embodies three dimensions of hybridity: it brings together governmental and non‐governmental controls; it combines central and local authority; and it engages a multiplicity of policy actors. Yet this system became rigid 20 years into its development. Sources of rigidity included shifts in the regulatory environment, temporal constriction in the range policy participants, and risk aversion on the part of non‐governmental institutions charged with implementing federally mandated controls. This article explores the implications of these institutional dynamics for the relationship between hybridity and regulatory responsiveness. It also examines possibilities for renewed flexibility generated by the recent advent of both accreditation and regulatory innovation by university research administrators.
Suggested Citation
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00032.x
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- Ezekiel J Emanuel & Trudo Lemmens & Carl Elliot, 2006. "Should Society Allow Research Ethics Boards to Be Run As For-Profit Enterprises?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-1, July.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Carol A. Heimer & Elsinore Kuo, 2021. "Subterranean successes: Durable regulation and regulatory endowments," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-82, November.
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.- Simpson, Bob & Khatri, Rekha & Ravindran, Deapica & Udalagama, Tharindi, 2015. "Pharmaceutical
Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v2y2008i1p85-102.html