Despite claims that research-ethics review is changing or discouraging social research, there are no studies that have tested this assumption. Examining Canadian Master's theses in anthropology between 1995 and 2004, this paper explores the extent to which the theses represent a change in number, topic, or methodology in relation to formal ethics-review guidelines that came into force in Canada in 2001. ProQuest Digital Dissertations reveals that the number of theses has increased, and that there has not been a noticeable shift from research involving humans to research based on archival data, or theoretical or review theses. However, there has been a very significant increase in research that is called ethnography, but that relies exclusively on interviews. Possible reasons for the halving of percent of ethnographic or participant-observation research are explored.
AAA (American Anthropological Association). (2001). Briefing Paper Series: Common dilemmas faced by anthropologists conducting research in field situations. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
2.
AAUP (American Association of University Professors). (2001). Protecting human beings: Institutional review boards and social science research. Academe, 87 (3) (May-June), 55–67. Accessed 4 August 2005 at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/repirb.htm.
3.
AIR (American of Internet Researchers (and Charles Ess)). (2002). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AIR Ethics Working Committee. http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics/pdf.
4.
AdlerP. A., & AdlerP. (2002). Do university lawyers and the police define research values? In van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 34–42). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
5.
BeckerH. S. (1969). Participant observation and interviewing: A comparison. In McCallG. J. and SimmonsJ. L. (Eds.). Issues in participant observation: A text and reader (pp. 322–331). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6.
BrunerE. M. (2004). Ethnographic practice and human subjects review. Anthropology Newslettter, 45 (1), 10.
7.
Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa. (2000). Governance of the ethical process for research involving human subjects: Final report. (March 15, 2000).
8.
Christiansen-RuffmanL. (1998). Points to present at consultation in Halifax, October 27, 1997 Re.: Code of ethical conduct for research. Society, 22(1), 13–15.
9.
ChurchJ. T.ShopesL. & BlanchardMA. (2002). For the record: Should all disciplines be subject to the Common Rule? Human subjects in social science research. Academe, 88(3), 62–69.
10.
COGDOP (Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology). (2006). Data on problems with ethics review (synopsis written by Pat O'Neil). Annual meeting of the Committee of Graduate Departments of Psychology. Sarasota, FL, 10–12 Febr.
11.
DolanB. (1999). The impact of local research ethics committees on the development of nursing knowledge. Journal. of Advanced Nursing, 30 (5), 1009–1010.
12.
FitzgeraldM. H. (2005). Punctuated equilibrium, moral panics, and the ethics review process. Journal. of Academic Ethics, 2 (4) (December), 315–338.
13.
GluszynskiT. & PetersV. (2005). Survey of earned doctorates: A profile of doctoral degree recipients. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Minister of Industry.
14.
GraysonJ. P. (2004, January). How ethics committees are killing survey research on Canadian students. University Affairs, 45 (1), 40.
15.
GunsalusC. K. (2003). Human subject regulations: Whom are we protecting from what, and why? Working to align incentives with ethical goals. Professional Ethics Report. 16, 1–3.
16.
HaggertyK. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 391–414.
17.
HSSFC (Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada). (2001). Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada on Implementation of the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethics in Human Research (TCPS) (Humanities Project). Ottawa: Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada. (April).
18.
JohnsonJ. M., & AltheideD. L. (2002). Reflections on professional ethics. In van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 59–69). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
19.
KellnerF. (2002). Yet another coming crisis? Coping with guidelines from the Tri-Council. In van den HoonaardW. C., (Ed.). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 26–33). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
20.
MacDonaldS. (2002). British social anthropology. Pp. 60–79 in AtkinsonP.CoffeyA.DelamontS.LoflandJ., & LoflandL. (Eds.). Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage.
MRC, NSERC, & SSHRC (Medical Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council). (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. // www.sshrc.ca/english/programinfo/policies/Intro01.htm>
23.
NelsonC. (2004). Message from the guest Editor. NCEHR Communiqué, 12 (2) (Spring), 2.
24.
NORC. (2003). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2003. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
25.
OkihiroN. (2000). Should I wear a sign on my forehead?: New ethical dilemmas for extended field work. Presented at the CASCA Annual Meetings, U. of Calgary, May 4–7, 2000.
26.
PearceM. (2002). Challenging the system: Rethinking ethics review of social research in Britain's National Health Service. In van den HoonaardW. C., (Ed.). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 43–58). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
27.
PoolG. (1998, July). CSAA [Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association] Response to the code of ethical conduct for research involving humans. Society, 22(1), 1–5.
28.
Protocol. (1969). In Random House Dictionary of the English Language. (p. 1156). New York: Random House.
29.
Protocol. (1989). In Oxford English Dictionary. (Vol. 12, p. 695). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SieberJ. E.IannuzzoR., & Rodriguez. (1995). Deception methods in psychology: Have they changed in 23 years?Ethics & Behavior, 5 (1), 67–85.
32.
SSHWC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee). (2004). Giving voice to the spectrum: Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee to the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Ottawa: Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics.
33.
ThomasJim. (2002). Re-examining human subjects protections in ethnographic research: Unpacking the memes of over-zealous oversight. Paper presented at the Midwest Sociological Society Annual Meetings, Milwaukee. 7 April. Accessed 9 April 2002: http://www.soci.niu.edu/∼jthomas/papers/irbmeme.
34.
TolichM. & FitzgeraldM. H. (2006). If ethics committees were designed for ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(2), xx–xx.
35.
van den HoonaardW. C. (Ed.). (2002). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
36.
van den HoonaardW. C. (2003). Coming to terms with research-ethics review in the social sciences. Research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (# 410-2003-0318).
37.
van den HoonaardW. C. (2005). Bibliography of ethics in the social sciences and the humanities. Unpubl. ms.
38.
Van MaanenJ. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
WildeK. K. (2004). A star keeps my heartbeat: Conversations with Omushkego storyteller Louis Bird. (Master's thesis, University of Manitoba, 2004). ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT MQ91308.
40.
WolcottH. F. (2002). Sneaky kid and its aftermath: Ethics and intimacy in fieldwork. Walnut Creek CA: Altamira Press.
