In this paper, we draw on the authors' collective experiences as qualitative researchers undergoing research ethics reviews. We highlight specific areas within our standard national guidelines that support qualitative research. Using case examples, we illustrate how diverse interpretations of these guidelines can be inconsistent and problematic for qualitative researchers. We outline recommendations for transparency, reciprocity, and streamlining of the review process. It is our hope that adoption of these recommendations will lead to a more collegial evaluative process, thereby contributing to the advancement of knowledge.
AbbottL. & GradyC. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3–20.
2.
AngellE.SuttonA.WindridgeK., & Dixon-WoodsM. (2006). Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: A controlled comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(11), 662–664.
3.
AyresL. (2007). Qualitative research proposals—Part II: Conceptual models and methodological options. Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing, 34(2), 131–133.
4.
BeanS.HenryB.KinseyM.McMurrayK.ParryC., & TassopoulosT. (2010). Enhancing research ethics decision-making: A REB decision bank. Ethics and Human Research, 32(6), 9–12.
5.
BrownP.Morello-FroschR.BrodyJ. G.AltmanR. G.RudelR. A.SenierL.PérezC., & SimpsonR. (2010). Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: A case study. Environmental Health, 9, 39. Available online at http://www.ehjournal.net/content/9/1/39.
6.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf.
7.
FlickerS.TraversR.GutaA.McDonaldS., & MeagherA. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health, 84(4), 478–493.
8.
GittnerL.RoachM.KikanoG.GreyS., & DawsonN. (2011). Health service research: The square peg in human subjects protection regulations. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 118–122.
9.
LincolnY. & TierneyW. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219–234.
MurrayL.PushorD., & RenihanP. (2012). Reflections on the ethics approval process. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(1), 43–54.
12.
ParnisD.Du MontJ., & GombayB. (2005). Cooperation or co-optation? Assessing the methodological benefits and barriers involved in conducting qualitative research through medical institutional settings. Qualitative Health Research, 15(5), 686–697.
13.
RuttanL. (2004). Exploring ethical principles in the context of research relationships. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 2(1), 11–28.
