Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: fit for research purpose?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics : fit for research purpose? / Stanley, Liz; Wise, Sue.

In: Sociological Research Online, Vol. 15, No. 4, 30.11.2010, p. n/a.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Stanley, L & Wise, S 2010, 'The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: fit for research purpose?', Sociological Research Online, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. n/a. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2265

APA

Vancouver

Stanley L, Wise S. The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: fit for research purpose? Sociological Research Online. 2010 Nov 30;15(4):n/a. doi: 10.5153/sro.2265

Author

Stanley, Liz ; Wise, Sue. / The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics : fit for research purpose?. In: Sociological Research Online. 2010 ; Vol. 15, No. 4. pp. n/a.

Bibtex

@article{151818d18e8c4d6a8c8d55a538ef5239,
title = "The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: fit for research purpose?",
abstract = "The ESRC's (2010) Framework for Research Ethics extends the remit of its 2005 research ethics framework in three significant ways: the system is to be fully mandatory and it will no longer be possible to make the case that no out of the ordinary ethical issues arise; the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) set up under the ESRC's 2005 document have extended remit, including reviewing all research proposals accepted by the ESRC and other funding bodies; and funding will depend on the REC review, with its purview extending through a project's life. The 2010 document is reviewed in detail and the conclusion is drawn that it is not fit for purpose. Six wider issues raised by the FRE document are discussed: the consultation process by the ESRC was insufficient and the informed consent of the social science community was not obtained; the ethics creep involved will involve unnecessary bureaucratisation; the RECs will operate without expert discipline-specific knowledge using unethical generalist criteria; the overall effects long-term will be deleterious to the research base; the FRE document unacceptably ignores the professional associations and their research ethics guidelines; and the ESRC's system of the expert peer review of funding applications will be undermined.",
keywords = "Framework for Research Ethics, ESRC , Research Ethics , Audit Creep",
author = "Liz Stanley and Sue Wise",
year = "2010",
month = nov,
day = "30",
doi = "10.5153/sro.2265",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "n/a",
journal = "Sociological Research Online",
issn = "1360-7804",
publisher = "Sociological Research Online",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics

T2 - fit for research purpose?

AU - Stanley, Liz

AU - Wise, Sue

PY - 2010/11/30

Y1 - 2010/11/30

N2 - The ESRC's (2010) Framework for Research Ethics extends the remit of its 2005 research ethics framework in three significant ways: the system is to be fully mandatory and it will no longer be possible to make the case that no out of the ordinary ethical issues arise; the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) set up under the ESRC's 2005 document have extended remit, including reviewing all research proposals accepted by the ESRC and other funding bodies; and funding will depend on the REC review, with its purview extending through a project's life. The 2010 document is reviewed in detail and the conclusion is drawn that it is not fit for purpose. Six wider issues raised by the FRE document are discussed: the consultation process by the ESRC was insufficient and the informed consent of the social science community was not obtained; the ethics creep involved will involve unnecessary bureaucratisation; the RECs will operate without expert discipline-specific knowledge using unethical generalist criteria; the overall effects long-term will be deleterious to the research base; the FRE document unacceptably ignores the professional associations and their research ethics guidelines; and the ESRC's system of the expert peer review of funding applications will be undermined.

AB - The ESRC's (2010) Framework for Research Ethics extends the remit of its 2005 research ethics framework in three significant ways: the system is to be fully mandatory and it will no longer be possible to make the case that no out of the ordinary ethical issues arise; the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) set up under the ESRC's 2005 document have extended remit, including reviewing all research proposals accepted by the ESRC and other funding bodies; and funding will depend on the REC review, with its purview extending through a project's life. The 2010 document is reviewed in detail and the conclusion is drawn that it is not fit for purpose. Six wider issues raised by the FRE document are discussed: the consultation process by the ESRC was insufficient and the informed consent of the social science community was not obtained; the ethics creep involved will involve unnecessary bureaucratisation; the RECs will operate without expert discipline-specific knowledge using unethical generalist criteria; the overall effects long-term will be deleterious to the research base; the FRE document unacceptably ignores the professional associations and their research ethics guidelines; and the ESRC's system of the expert peer review of funding applications will be undermined.

KW - Framework for Research Ethics

KW - ESRC

KW - Research Ethics

KW - Audit Creep

U2 - 10.5153/sro.2265

DO - 10.5153/sro.2265

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

SP - n/a

JO - Sociological Research Online

JF - Sociological Research Online

SN - 1360-7804

IS - 4

ER -