Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review: REB Members’ Experiences of Assessing Probable Impacts of Research for Human Subjects

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review: REB Members’ Experiences of Assessing Probable Impacts of Research for Human Subjects. / Cox, S.M.; McDonald, M.; Townsend, Anne.
In: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol. 15, No. 5, 01.12.2020, p. 383-395.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Cox SM, McDonald M, Townsend A. Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review: REB Members’ Experiences of Assessing Probable Impacts of Research for Human Subjects. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2020 Dec 1;15(5):383-395. Epub 2019 Sept 15. doi: 10.1177/1556264619872369

Author

Cox, S.M. ; McDonald, M. ; Townsend, Anne. / Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review : REB Members’ Experiences of Assessing Probable Impacts of Research for Human Subjects. In: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2020 ; Vol. 15, No. 5. pp. 383-395.

Bibtex

@article{433d092ab5f2437cbdd9c89d57ea8fe9,
title = "Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review: REB Members{\textquoteright} Experiences of Assessing Probable Impacts of Research for Human Subjects",
abstract = "Research ethics boards (REBs) are charged with applying ethical standards to protect the rights and interests of research subjects. Little, however, is known about how REB members perceive probable impacts of research participation for subjects. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 40 Canadian REB members, we identify three frequently reported epistemic strategies, including reliance on a local REB culture or ethos, use of resident authorities, and protective imagination. Far less commonly described strategies included direct or indirect contact with research subjects. REB members also reflected upon significant gaps in their knowledge and thus the importance of knowing what we don't know. Recommendations arising from this support an evidence-based practice for ethics review involving clear epistemic standards for REBs learning about subjects' experiences.",
author = "S.M. Cox and M. McDonald and Anne Townsend",
year = "2020",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1556264619872369",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "383--395",
journal = "Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics",
issn = "1556-2646",
publisher = "SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review

T2 - REB Members’ Experiences of Assessing Probable Impacts of Research for Human Subjects

AU - Cox, S.M.

AU - McDonald, M.

AU - Townsend, Anne

PY - 2020/12/1

Y1 - 2020/12/1

N2 - Research ethics boards (REBs) are charged with applying ethical standards to protect the rights and interests of research subjects. Little, however, is known about how REB members perceive probable impacts of research participation for subjects. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 40 Canadian REB members, we identify three frequently reported epistemic strategies, including reliance on a local REB culture or ethos, use of resident authorities, and protective imagination. Far less commonly described strategies included direct or indirect contact with research subjects. REB members also reflected upon significant gaps in their knowledge and thus the importance of knowing what we don't know. Recommendations arising from this support an evidence-based practice for ethics review involving clear epistemic standards for REBs learning about subjects' experiences.

AB - Research ethics boards (REBs) are charged with applying ethical standards to protect the rights and interests of research subjects. Little, however, is known about how REB members perceive probable impacts of research participation for subjects. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 40 Canadian REB members, we identify three frequently reported epistemic strategies, including reliance on a local REB culture or ethos, use of resident authorities, and protective imagination. Far less commonly described strategies included direct or indirect contact with research subjects. REB members also reflected upon significant gaps in their knowledge and thus the importance of knowing what we don't know. Recommendations arising from this support an evidence-based practice for ethics review involving clear epistemic standards for REBs learning about subjects' experiences.

U2 - 10.1177/1556264619872369

DO - 10.1177/1556264619872369

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

SP - 383

EP - 395

JO - Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

JF - Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

SN - 1556-2646

IS - 5

ER -