Abstract
The debate around ethics review boards (IRBs) has assumed an increasingly central place in academic practice and discourse. In this article, we summarize a unique workshop (study-group) that convened at the University of Haifa, attended by 27 academics from around the globe, representing nine countries in four continents. The participants presented data and points of view, which served as the basis for an open, interdisciplinary discussion. The group developed a set of recommendations, including working toward a transition from a review system to an advisory and validation system; focusing on respectful research approach to participants, rather than “ethical” research; building a procedure that focuses on feedback, rather than the process itself; recognizing that a unified examination need not necessarily be standardized; and constructing a feedback procedure in which researchers can respond to the review of their research.
Keywords
Introduction
In December 2017, the University of Haifa hosted a unique international research workshop, funded by the National Science Foundation and supported by the university. The workshop focused on the ethical regulation of academic research with human participants. The conference was a natural continuation of extensive and in-depth mapping and investigation of the regulation of ethics review boards (ERB or IRB) in the social and behavioral sciences (i.e., social work, sociology, law, economics, and so on—hereinafter “the social sciences”) in Israeli academia. The debate regarding this topic has assumed an increasingly central place in academic practice and discourse. Yet this topic is not formally regulated in Israel, and throughout the years, it has been subject to diverse and decentralized voluntary regulation in various academic institutions.
The 3-day workshop was attended by 27 academics from Australia, Italy, the United States, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Israel, and Canada who represented diverse research disciplines and programs, including ethics, gerontology, history, education policy, public law, management, sociology, social work, and medicine. The goal of the workshop was to bring together academics who are concerned about the future of ethical review processes and were willing to share their ideas and discuss possibilities. There was no single theoretical approach or unified perspective. Rather, out of the discussions, shared concerns were highlighted and possible solutions presented. The participants presented data and points of view, which served as the basis for an open, interdisciplinary discussion. Overall, the workshop consisted of formal paper presentations, followed by open-ended discussions and unstructured discussion groups. The discussions were summarized and presented to the participants, who commented on the summaries. The outcome of this semi-structured process was a point summary that led to the current article. 1
In addition, on the last day of the workshop, which was an open seminar day, the participants presented studies and expert positions to the attending public. The participants processed the workshop lectures and discussion into a summary paper, the main points of which are presented in the current article.
Ethical Review of Academic Research With Human Participants
The regulation and operation of formal bodies that supervise the ethical aspects of biomedical experiments is considered a recent and relatively modern development (Baker et al., 1999; Guillemin et al., 2012; Hedgecoe, 2009; Jonsen, 2000; Rubin, 2011; Stark, 2007, 2010).
In practice, the regulation of research ethics began in 1975, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services began to require institutional review committee approval for research proposals as a condition of funding studies. Other federal agencies, institutions, and funds later adopted this requirement (Ceci et al., 1985), and in 1991 the “common rule” was legislated (Title 45, Part 46, Sub-Episode A). This legislation currently guides most American federal agencies, including those that sponsor research in the social sciences (Israel & Hay, 2006).
The need to perform joint studies with American researchers, along with the need to secure federal U.S. funding, led to a rise in demand for research review procedures in social sciences research in other countries, including Canada (Haggerty, 2004), the United Kingdom (Shaw et al., 2005; Slowther et al., 2006), and Europe (Hedgecoe et al., 2006), and those countries also adopted legislation for ethics review of social sciences (e.g., de Albuquerque Rocha & Vasconcelos, 2019; Guillemin et al., 2012; Tauri, 2014). As a result of these developments, more scientific journals in the social sciences progressively began to demand ethical credentials as a precondition for examining articles describing studies involving human participants.
In other countries, including Israel, 2 academic institutions began to establish voluntary research ethics review procedures, independent of a central authority. In most cases, these review procedures copied the American model or were adjusted to meet the requirements of a specific scientific journal or research fund (Dingwall, 2008).
Ethics Oversight in Social Sciences Research
In the United States, the expansion of regulatory oversight norms to research in the social and behavioral sciences occurred almost from the outset of regulatory research oversight requirements (American Association of University Professors, 2006).
In other countries, the introduction of ethics review procedures into research in the social sciences has been more gradual, hesitant, and at times reluctant. In the United Kingdom, for example, social sciences research was not explicitly referred to under the first 1964 statement on research with human subjects (Rickham, 1964). It seems to have received its first mention in a 1975 medical research council document on access to medical information (Dingwall, 2008). A few reasons may have contributed to this. First, potential risks inherent in social sciences research were considered to be relatively low compared with those in the clinical medical field. Studies in the social sciences, for the most part, do not make use of dangerous substances and therefore, the damage that may arise from such studies—such as mental anguish or harms to privacy—was viewed as limited or reversible (Dingwall, 2008). Similarly, the status asymmetry between researcher and subject is in many cases lower in studies in the social sciences than in clinical medical research. Moreover, in many cases, the common risks in research in the social sciences can be anticipated and assessed by the study participants themselves (Dingwall, 2008), which also helps to narrow the problematic gaps in status between the researcher and the study participant. As such, it was felt—and many still hold this view—that there is less need for external protection of participants’ welfare in social sciences research.
So, why were research ethics review requirements ultimately expanded and applied to research in the social sciences? The answer is complex. Writers who support the application of these review procedures in the social sciences have argued that the procedures were expanded to include the social sciences in light of ethical problems detected in multiple social sciences studies. These writers also argued that the potential risk to the participants in social sciences research may be no less severe than that in clinical studies (Oakes, 2002).
On the other hand, critics of the review procedures have argued that this expansion is the outcome of institutional politics and interests (Guillemin et al., 2012), and that ethics review boards—like other institutions—aim to boost their power and degree of social dominance (Schrag, 2010; Tauri, 2014). Social dominance theory relates to explicit and subtle forms of discrimination and oppression inherent in any human society and organization (Sidanius et al., 2004). In our case, once ERB members start to apply their own social values and professional habitus, rather than evaluate proposals in the specific disciplinary and sociocultural context to which those proposals apply, they start to construct social dominance and give rise to researchers’ opposition and resistance.
Others have attributed the introduction of review procedures to research in the social sciences to a general transition from a system based on an assumption of professional skills and responsibility to a system based on a lack of institutionalized trust, which implies that an additional level of inspection is required to ensure that researchers work in an ethical manner (Haggerty, 2004). Finally, “legalization” processes, which occurred at both the national and global levels, also influenced research institutions and led to the establishment of ethics boards.
Social Sciences Research Oversight Under Fire
Review procedures for academic research in general, and particularly in the social sciences, stand at the center of years of academic controversy regarding the need for such procedures and their legitimacy, effectiveness, and proper implementation (Bosk & De Vries, 2004; DuBois & James, 2004; Ferraro et al., 1999; Lincoln & Tierney, 2004; Malouff & Schutte, 2005).
Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (2005; Keith-Spiegel et al., 2006; Koocher, 2013) followed Cohen (1999) in summarizing several issues as major faults in research ethics review. Those issues included censorship of research topics; inconsistent decision making; harassment of researchers; implementing authority without taking responsibility; judgment biases; ineffective communication with researchers; inadequate knowledge or misunderstanding of relevant research methodology; overemphasis or underemphasis of evaluation of risks; lack of appeal mechanisms; broad variations in interpretations of research regulation; and failure to focus on study participants’ rights—all of which stray from the pursuit of scientific excellence. In addition to these issues, other researchers noted further limitations of the ethics review procedures: prolonged protocol evaluation process; lack of flexibility; and justification of idiosyncratic decisions, under the pretext that local standards overrode standard measures of evaluation.
In addition, critics pointed to excessive precaution-taking, which glorifies the protection of the institution and research participants (Edwards et al., 2004; Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 2005; Wainwright & Saunders, 2004). Moreover, critics of such regulation have pointed to the inadequacy of applying biomedical ethical standards to the social sciences. They argued that this “import” has bred negative results (Dingwall, 2008). Finally, critics of research review in the social sciences have argued that research ethics review procedures constitute a type of censorship, which violates the right to freedom of speech (Hamburger, 2005). From this point of view, research review is a type of activity that “licenses speech,” and is thus, censorship of ideas. Moreover, critics have posited that the social costs of such scientific censorship are much greater and far more harmful than its benefits (for example, see Dingwall, 2008). 3
It is important to note that despite an abundance of criticism of regulation and review procedures in academic research, most is not founded on empirical evidence, but rather on anecdotal experiences (De Vries et al., 2004). And yet even in the absence of an empirical basis, criticism of this type suggests, at the very least, the possibility of a crisis of confidence between review boards and researchers, who are presumed to be the key partners in the ethical discourse pertaining to the study.
Rethinking Social Sciences Research Oversight
In 2012, the University of New Brunswick in Canada hosted an academic meeting that aimed to examine the so-called “ethics rupture,” which was a result of the application of review procedures on research ethics in the social sciences (van den Hoonaard, 2013a, 2013b). Following the meeting, the New Brunswick declaration was published (van den Hoonaard, 2016). This declaration called for the actualization of the following principles in research in the social sciences:
Promote freedom of expression and freedom of research.
Respect individuals and communities and give preference to potential benefits over concerns about possible damage.
Obligate researchers to meet professional standards of proper skills and qualifications, integrity, and trust.
Encourage the promotion of ethical conduct in research in diverse ways, involving as many partners as possible.
Construct regulation that ensures respect and protection for researchers and participants alike.
Encourage “bottom-up,” widespread ethical training.
Ensure continuous rethinking of ways to improve existing regulations.
The research workshop discussed in this article, held at the University of Haifa, was the conceptional continuation of these ideas.
Furthermore, the topic of research review in academic institutions in Israel is at a historic turning point, because the possibility of voluntary regulation of research review—regulations that would be adopted by all Israeli academic institutions—is being examined. As part of this process, academic institutions in Israel are examining the need for and feasibility of creating research review arrangements that have common consolidated characteristics on one hand and are flexible and adaptable to each individual institution on the other hand. This process is unique in the world and might present an excellent opportunity for coherent and orderly thinking about research review objectives and desired characteristics.
The purpose of the workshop was to examine the complexities of the previously mentioned principles and the conclusions reached at the New Brunswick meeting, while examining them in light of the unique circumstances of Israeli regulation—a unique and fascinating process that is underway—and exploring the contribution of these facets to international discourse.
As a springboard for discussion, the workshop featured the results of a study conducted in Israel that examined facets of research regulations: the nature of regulation of research involving human participants in the various academic institutions in Israel; the positions of Israeli academic researchers regarding the current application of the arrangements; and the question of what constitutes desirable regulation (and whether there should be any regulation). As the discussions in the workshop unfolded, they tended to transition from simple criticism of the very existence of a research review process to the desired nature of its function. The conversation focused on identifying obstacles to better control and review of ethical aspects in research and offering practical suggestions to refine and improve ethics review in academic research involving human participants in a way that would best serve the interests of all stakeholders involved in the research project—the researchers, various institutions, community under study, general public, and various regulatory bodies. In other words, most of the workshop participants believed that the question was not whether there should be ethical regulation of studies in social science, but rather what the nature, content, and characteristics of this regulation should look like.
Discussion
The workshop participants raised and examined key weaknesses in research review procedure in general and in Israel in particular in their current structure, as summarized here.
A Hierarchical Review System Rather Than a Partnership
In the current structure, which is inspired by the medical research monitoring model, the research review process in Israel is constructed as a hierarchical process in which a committee examines the proposed study protocol and chooses to approve its execution, not approve its execution, or request amendments as a condition of approval. The committee is a high “tribunal” that wields absolute power to decide the fate of the research. This hierarchical structure is problematic for two main reasons.
First, there is a dissonance between the hierarchical nature of ethical review of research and the collaborative nature of the research project itself. As it stands today, the review board’s activity assumes that researchers will protect their own interests and that the board’s role is to intervene in or prevent research due to the need to protect interests that the researcher does not necessarily represent—which is to say, those of the study participants and institutions. However, good research relies on cooperation among the investigator, participants (which is why they are so called), and institutions (which finance and encourage research). Research in the social sciences is often characterized by strong participants—people who possess the knowledge that the study is seeking to obtain and the power either to sustain or impede the study. The positioning of the review procedure as hierarchical and intended to stop researchers from performing potentially harmful activities damages the perception of research as a cooperative process and strengthens the adversarial relationship between the researcher and participants in the study. This approach treats participants as research subjects rather than partners in the process (Ben-Ari & Enosh, 2020; Enosh & Ben-Ari, 2010).
Second, the hierarchical nature of the research ethics review procedure (in which the board bears sole responsibility for review) has an additional effect: It seems to exempt researchers from any responsibility in discussions of ethical research. 4 The act of passing the study to an external review board has been perceived by some researchers as exempting them from engaging in a discussion regarding the ethical implications of their study, and thus exempting them, in their view, from the need to study and internalize research ethics. This can have consequences in the form of a study design that does not consider possible ethical damage. In many cases, this can also make it difficult for researchers to fully understand the board’s comments, which can cause the researchers to feel resentment and frustration when receiving the board’s comments. Thus, instead of being partners in the ethics discussion, the researchers have turned (at least in their eyes) into “victims” of the ethics review.
The Review Board as a Center of Power
Many researchers, and others, perceive ERBs as a tool by which institutions obtain or maintain power (Boser, 2007). Unlimited power in the hands of the board, combined with a culture of fear and suspicion that is built into the review board process, produce high potential for the penetration of extraneous considerations or unreviewed errors in the review process. For example, damage to the rules of procedural justice (Leventhal, 1980) may occur in the absence of review or the lack of an option to appeal the decisions of an ethics board. The result is that incorrect or unbalanced decisions may block the way for researchers to carry out proper studies. This causes damage to both researchers and those who may enjoy the fruits of the research. Moreover, factors at the individual level, such as personal motives (review procedures are not anonymous and thus, may turn into a scene for “getting even” on a personal level) or “political” motives (such as institutional or departmental considerations that do not necessarily relate to the study), may wield unfair influence on the decision and impede on the procedure.
Snapshot Review Instead of Continuous Monitoring
Study review, as it is conducted in many countries—Israel included, is a time-defined process that takes place at the preliminary phase of the study, rather than an ongoing process that accompanies the study in its various stages. Specifically, the board examines a structured research protocol and is authorized to approve the study as it is, disqualify its execution, or request corrections as a condition of approval. This review structure is akin to the medical model, in which every research project starts with a specific research hypothesis that the researcher seeks to investigate using predefined research tools and is formulated using a strict protocol. However, in many studies in the social sciences, the researcher does not necessarily have a preliminary hypothesis, but rather has a desire to be exposed to data and knowledge and to learn (see, for example, Marzano, 2007). This is most typical in, but not limited to, qualitative research approaches, which are “inherently dynamic” (as described by the Canadian Tri-Council policy statement; see Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018) and are often characterized by the “emergence during the course of the research itself of questions, concepts, strategies, theories and ways to gather and engage with the data” (point A.c. in the preamble to Chapter 10 of the aforementioned statement). In such cases, a prebuilt protocol will not do. Rather, the protocol is intentionally flexible—it is formed during and changes throughout the study. Thus, the requirement to structure a strict predetermined protocol is not only impossible, it is also inappropriate and impairs the ability to conduct research in many disciplines (Librett & Perrone, 2010; Marzano, 2007; Swauger, 2009, 2011).
Moreover, in practice, much of the need for ethical discussion arises during the construction of the protocol (be it structured or flexible) and the implementation of the study. This is especially true in studies where the research protocol becomes more intricate during implementation. As the existing study review process only looks at a finished protocol at one point in time, it does not support the ethical challenges arising during the preliminary stage of the creation of the research protocol, nor does it address or offer support for ethical dilemmas and difficulties (expected or not) that arise during the execution of the study (Opsal et al., 2016).
Lack of Disciplinary and Cultural Flexibility
The structure of the current review process relies significantly on the medical model, which is based on three key assumptions:
Deep-rooted concern about the significant potential damage inherent in research.
Asymmetric balance of power and knowledge between the researcher and the study participant. The investigator possesses more knowledge and can coax and even coerce (albeit unconsciously) the participant’s involvement.
Individualistic conception of participants: Each participant represents only the self in the study, while ignoring surrounding cultural and social frameworks; for example, collectivist cultures and unique organizational contexts.
These assumptions tend to cause medical therapeutic research to focus on individuals’ consent, steer away from populations that are sensitive to harm or unable to give legally autonomous consent (in the liberal individualistic sense), and favor the protection of study participants over the advancement of science, the public good, and possible benefits to participants themselves.
Common cases that demonstrate these tendencies and their poor outcomes, familiar to our workshop participants, included ERBs’ insistence on the management of informed consent processes by a physician, even in observational and interview-based social sciences studies. One example that was brought up in the study group, was an anthropological study that examined the interaction of patients with medical clowns. The unavailability and lack of interest on the part of the signing physicians, extended the study’s duration from one year to four years. Another example referred to a study seeking to understand the nutritional needs of illegal migrant workers. The insistence of the ERB on documenting (identified) individual consent of participants in the focus groups, although such documentation was contrary to the principle of confidentiality, exposed the participants’ identity and endangered them, thus discouraging them from participating in the study and preventing its execution.
In a recent work, Opsal et al. (2016) strikingly exemplified how when IRBs seek to “protect” individuals with marginalized identities or sensitive stories via a legal or risk framework and establish them as risky sites of examination, they simultaneously fail to see them as agents who actively negotiate a research space and use it to combat marginalization, take up space, and narrate their own stories.
In the social sciences, it is in fact important to study sensitive populations—those specific populations that may be excluded from the medical model for fear of harming them (Perry, 2011). In addition, the potential damage to study participants in most types of research in the social sciences is minimal and as such, does not justify privileging the protection of the participants over the social benefits to their affiliation group as an overriding rule. As an example of acceptable social sciences research that would not pass the scrutiny of medical research ethics, consider a study that aims to investigate the drinking habits of minors in peer social encounters. Under medical research ethics, nonemergency research on minors should not be conducted sans parental consent and thus, such a proposal would be desk-rejected by the ERB. Yet because parental consent cannot be obtained in the context of a 16-year-old’s weekend gatherings, under social sciences research ethics paradigms, it could be permissible to distribute questionnaires to minors drinking on street corners, as long as other protections are put in place. Such protections may include, for example, an anonymity guarantee.
Furthermore, many studies in the social sciences engage in the study of social groups that are not individualistic. In many cases, the human participant does not stand alone, but participates in the study as part of a group representing the phenomenon under investigation. In such cases, it may be important to analyze risks and benefits on the community level—and not merely to “individuals” (Guta et al., 2012). It may also be more important to obtain collective consent from the group being studied, whereas receiving consent from the individual is of secondary importance—and is sometimes not even acceptable in the particular cultural context (Davison et al., 2006; Fitzpatrick et al., 2016; van den Hoonaard, 2013a, 2013b). The reliance of review procedures on the Western therapeutic research model gives rise to disciplinary (and cultural) colonialism, in which Western culture imposes a liberal consent model on community-based cultures.
Absence of Empirical Data to Validate the Effectiveness of the Review System
In recent years, the global research review system has become a widespread industry, involving significant economic costs to the various institutions, in addition to the burden of time and resources borne by researchers. This broad investment is based on the assumption, which has never been evaluated empirically, that this system can protect those who should be protected, promote interests that are appropriate to promote, and create a positive social harm–benefit balance.
Beyond the fact that there is a values-based disagreement with respect to the goals that the review system intends to promote (i.e., Who deserves protection? What is worth promoting? What would be considered a positive balance?), the existence of this system is one of the clearest examples of how policy is created without a basis of factual examination, neither in advance nor retrospectively (Gontcharov, 2017).
Moreover, in the decades since the review requirement first rose on the agenda, allegations have surfaced that, to date, empirical evidence demonstrates that institutional regulations have caused harm to the individuals participating in research, and not the contrary (Marzano, 2007). As scholars, we are accustomed to searching for and establishing empirical anchors to determine and justify policy. In the absence of such anchors, it is easy to understand why many view the existing review system with so much skepticism and criticism.
Recommendations
The work group concluded that to give up entirely on the ethical review process is not feasible. Furthermore, the group believes that if the procedure is constructed properly, it can be transformed into an important tool for the advancement of ethical research. To construct a meaningful review process and increase the satisfaction of all interested parties in the research project, the work group suggests placing stronger emphasis on and promoting the following principles (not listed in order of priority):
Presuming good intentions among all parties in the research venture, while transitioning from an approach based on conflicts of interest (adversarial) to a collaborative approach
The research review process would be more supportive and effective if based on the assumption of cooperation and goodwill among all parties. Thus, the procedure should be based on rules of procedural fairness (Colquitt, 2001; Leventhal, 1980). These rules would lead to increased confidence in the system and increased trust among the various parties. For example, it would render the process transparent, allowing for dialog between the researchers and the authorities providing the ethical guidance, and offer the opportunity to appeal ERB decisions—all of which would lead to trust and understanding. In this new model, the board’s work would be seen as a vehicle to promote rather than impede research, and this would encourage researchers to strive to conduct research that is as ethical as possible. This kind of constructive collaboration would facilitate communication among the parties, streamline the review process, and promote optimal results.
Transition from a review system to an advisory and validation system
It is in everyone’s best interest to think about the process holistically. We should shift from a one-time review to continuous feedback for and among the partners in the process. The work group calls for a fundamental change in the way we perceive the role of research review bodies. Rather than examining an isolated protocol, they should serve as review and advisory bodies that support the formation of an initial protocol, but also changes that are made to the protocol during the study, to allow for its effective execution. Such bodies could also be instrumental in helping to address the ethical dilemmas that may arise during the implementation process.
This idea stands at the heart of Section 10.5 of the Canadian Tri-Council policy statement (Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018), dealing with qualitative research involving emergent design, and stating that in such studies, researchers shall (a) provide the ERB with all available information to assist in the review and approval of the general procedure for data collection; and (b) consult with the ERB when during the research, changes to data collection procedures may present ethical implications and associated risks to the participants.
Taking this novel approach a step farther, review and advisory bodies should be viewed as an inherent part of the research project, guiding it and validating the ethical foundations that support it, rather than being an obstacle that researchers must pass. Striving to understand the needs of the research and suggest ethically acceptable ways to achieve goals—instead of just allowing or disallowing it to go forward as is—would strengthen the process. Restructuring the procedure in this way would not only reduce feelings of frustration among researchers, but most importantly, would promote more ethical studies.
Focusing on research that honors the participant, rather than on “ethical” research
Without going into the ancient debate over whether ethics is universal, there is little doubt that there are significant differences in perceptions of what constitutes ethical research in various cultures and academic and research disciplines (Richardson & McMullan, 2007). This is especially apparent in various research contexts that diverge from traditional lab-based medical research; for example, when dealing with research conducted with Indigenous communities (e.g., Pearson et al., 2019) or participatory research (e.g., Bradley & MacFarlane, 2018; Eisenberg, 2018; Petrova et al., 2016). In participatory research, participants are emphasized as part of the research team, design, conduct, and dissemination. Paradoxically, such an approach may raise issues with committees regarding confidentiality on one hand and adherence to the integrity of cooperation and participation on the other.
Consequently, the work group believes that it is easier and more appropriate to reach a consensus about whether the study honors its participants (and the place and role in which they see themselves in the study) rather than about whether the study is “ethical.” This requires ethics committees to focus on the concept of human dignity, from which the requirements of informed consent, privacy, justice, and so forth were derived—while examining its appropriate realization in a particular context, and not necessarily the realization of its derivatives. Focusing on the design of research in a way that respects the participants and communities under study would allow for a more flexible review procedure and enable a more productive dialog between researchers and study review bodies. As a chair of an ethics committee commented in a recent case report (Bradley & MacFarlane, 2018), In the end, we recognized that we had to trust the integrity and expertise of the research group. We came to realize that the very fact of using a participatory approach showed a high degree of sensitivity to the vulnerability of the group that was the focus of the research. (p. 166)
Building a procedure that focuses on feedback, and not on the process itself
The research review process is a tool that helps to achieve a goal. The goal is to perform a study that contributes to knowledge while respecting its participants. The objective is therefore to design a system that promotes research that honors its participants and does not prolong the review process or make it more cumbersome due to bureaucratic requirements. The design of the submission processes should be as simple as possible, and we should dwell on deviations from these processes only when they would prejudice the achievement of the desired goal.
Recognizing that a unified examination need not necessarily be standardized
To ensure the equality and impartiality of the evaluation, the review process should be as consolidated and transparent as possible. However, consolidation should not entail an automatic review that could lead to a bureaucratic Procrustean bed. Flexibility is essential in understanding the context of the study, its participants, and the discipline and method in which it operates. The work group recommends the creation of a review process based on basic rules. This should be a process in which committees can and should deviate from these rules and interpret them according to the given context in each case.
Constructing a feedback process in which researchers can respond to the review of their research
A shift to a holistic view of the review process (that includes cooperation among all stakeholders in the process and a shared recognition of its importance) would be beneficial to the process and lead to a system that includes a built-in feedback stage. As noted by Raudonis (1992) three decades ago, A required and integral part of the design and implementation of any research project is a review by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). However, ethical issues related to many of the steps in the research process are not addressed in an IRB review. (p. 238)
Indeed, these issues have not been revisited or revised until this day. Our recommendation is that the reviewing body receive comments on the review process, for the purposes of learning and self-improvement. This process of reflective reciprocity would facilitate socialization processes concerning research that honors its participant. It would also help all parties involved to internalize the importance of ethical aspects in research, and it would enhance cooperation between researchers and members of the review board.
Summary
Ethics review procedures in academic research in general and in the social sciences in particular have been established in many countries in recent decades—some as part of an organized regulatory framework and some voluntarily. Research review policies worldwide lack a solid empirical foundation, and it seems that their goals—those stated and those that are covert—are factually and ideologically controversial.
The research workshop that took place in Haifa in December 2017 constitutes an additional tier in a broad-ranging thinking process about the goals of research ethics review and the appropriate ways to regulate it, and we hope that it will contribute to the beneficial and supportive construction of ethics review procedures in academic studies globally.
Current approaches to ethical review in the social sciences tend to create a split between ERBs and researchers and a dichotomy in the field of qualitative health research between medical research and other forms of research. This article inherently questions such dichotomies and the tendency to enforce limited perspectives of ethical review derived from compartmentalized views of medical research on the wider fields of health and human research, including the sociobehavioral sciences.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank the University of Haifa for its support and for hosting the conference.
Authors’ Note
All authors contributed equally to the article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We thank the National Science Fund for its help and support in financing the study and the conference.
