Literature DB >> 23921211

Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local shaping of ethical review practices.

Patricia Jaspers1, Rob Houtepen2, Klasien Horstman3.   

Abstract

Since ethical review practice has developed in relation to specific regulatory regimes and local contexts, it cannot be understood without paying attention to the institutional context of ethical review practices. We believe the tendency towards strong central governance and standardization in ethical review implies a lack of understanding of how specific local institutional contexts actually affect ethical review practices. Our question is: "How do local institutional contexts relate to the way REC's shape their formal mandate, and what are the implications for research governance?" To get in-depth insights in how REC's shape their formal mandates in every-day practice, we did a qualitative ethnographic-sociological study of three Dutch REC's in different contexts: an academic context, a care context and a commercial context. In analyzing these three REC's we paid attention to the procedures operative in REC practices, the cultures and everyday experiences of REC members, the scientific, social and financial resources that are available to REC's, and the evaluative perspective REC's employ. We conclude that specific local, institutional contexts offer valuable resources for ethical review. To track this, insight into the institutional configuration as a whole is necessary. Variations in the ways REC's shape their formal mandate should not be regarded problematic, but rather as fruitful opportunities for public learning.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accountability; Institutional shaping; Local knowledge; Public learning; Research Ethics Committees (RECs); Standardization; The Netherlands; Trust

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23921211     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  2 in total

1.  Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review.

Authors:  Samantha Trace; Simon Erik Kolstoe
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 2.652

2.  Providing ethical guidance for collaborative research in developing countries.

Authors:  Nina Morris
Journal:  Res Ethics       Date:  2015-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.