We report the findings of a preliminary study of social science researchers' experiences of ethics review from a developing country perspective. Social science researchers' experiences of ethics review were coded as negative (42.6%), positive (21.3%), or mixed (36.2%). Ethics review was primarily experienced as negative for pragmatic reasons such as slow turnaround time, inadequate review and problems with the centralization of review. Our finding that South African researchers experience the same problems and frustrations with RECs as developed country researchers affirms that South Africa's problems with ethics review are not due to it being a less developed system, but to general review practices as they arise naturally in institutions. Developing countries thus have a unique opportunity to learn from the reported dissatisfactions and mistakes of developed countries, to avoid procedures that have hindered ethics review of much social science research in developed countries, and to fashion their own review procedures in ways that are more appropriate to key ethical issues arising in social science research and local conditions and resources.
AngellE.SuttonA. J.WindridgeK., & Dixon-WoodsM. (2006). Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: A controlled comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 662–664.
2.
AshcraftM. H. & KrauseJ. A. (2007). Social and behavioral researchers' experiences with their IRBs. Ethics & Behavior, 17(1), 1–17.
3.
BrecklerS. J. (2006). The IRB problem. Monitor on Psychology, 37, 21.
4.
CeciS. J.PetersD., & PlotkinJ. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40(9), 994–1002.
5.
CouncilJ. R.SmithE. J.Kaster-BundgaardJ., & GladueB. A. (1999). Interactions concerning risky research: Investigators rate their IRBs (and vice versa). In ChastainG. & LandrumR. E. (Eds.), Protecting human subjects: Departmental subjects pools and institutional review boards (pp. 183–199). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6.
CribbR. (2004). Ethical regulation and humanities research in Australia: Problems and consequences. Monash Bioethics, 23(3), 39–57.
7.
DadaM. A. & MooradR. (2001). A review of a South African research ethics committee. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 9(2), 58–59.
8.
EatonW. O. (1983). The reliability of ethics reviews: Some initial empirical findings. Canadian Psychologist, 24, 14–18.
9.
EmanuelE. J.WendlerD.KillenJ., & GradyC. (2004). What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 189, 930–937.
10.
FerraroF. R.SzigetiE.DawesK. J., & PanS. (1999). A survey regarding the University of North Dakota institutional review board: Data, attitudes, and perceptions. Journal of Psychology, 133, 272–280.
11.
GunsalusC. K.BrunerE. M.BurbulersN. C.DashL.FinkinM.GoldbergJ. P.GreenoughW. T.MillerG. A., & PrattM. G. (2006). Mission creep in the IRB world. Science, 312, 1441.
12.
HaggertyK. D. (2004). Ethics Creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–413.
13.
Illinois White Paper (2003). Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB's “mission creep”. Illinois: Center for Advanced Study.
14.
Keith-SpiegelP.KoocherG. P., & TabachnickB. (2006). What scientists want from their research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 67–82.
15.
KimmelA. J. (1996). Ethical issues in behavioral research: A survey. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
16.
LiddleB. J. & BrazeltonE. W. (1996). Psychology faculty satisfaction and compliance with IRB procedures. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 18, 4–6.
17.
MalouffJ. M., & SchutteN. S. (2005). Academic psychologists' perspectives on the human research ethics review process. Australian Psychologist, 40(1), 57–62.
18.
MattinglyC. (2005). Towards a vulnerable ethics of research practice. Health, 9(4), 453–471.
19.
MilfordC.WassenaarD., & SlackC. (2006). Resources and needs of research ethics committees in Africa: Preparations for HIV vaccine trials. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 28(2), 1–9.
20.
OakesJ. M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator's guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 443–479.
21.
PopeS. K. & VetterV. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47, 397–411.
22.
RedwoodS. & TodresL. (2006). Exploring the ethical imagination: Conversation as practice versus committee as gatekeeper. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(2), Article 26. Retrieved April 04, 2006 from http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/2-06/06-2-34-e.htm.
23.
ReissmanC. K. (2005). Exporting ethics: A narrative about narrative research in South India. Health, 9(4), 473–490.
24.
Republic of South Africa, Department of Health. (2004). Ethics in Health Research: Principles, Structures and Processes (Research Ethics Guidelines — 2004). Retrieved June 1, 2009 from http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/facts-f.html.
25.
RosenthalR. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. In BersoffD. N. (Ed.), Ethical conflicts in psychology (pp. 407–414). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
SieberJ. E. (1992). Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal review boards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
28.
van den HoonaardW. C. (2001). Is research ethics review a moral panic?Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38(1), 19–36.
29.
WassenaarD. R. (2006). Ethical issues in social science research. In BlancheTerre M.DurrheimK., & PainterM. (Eds.), Research in practice, 2nd ed. (pp. 60–79). Cape Town, South Africa: Jutas.
30.
WhittakerE. (2005). Adjudicating entitlements: The emerging discourses of research ethics boards. Health, 9(4), 513–535.
