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.
BakerR. B.CaplanA. L.EmanuelL. L.LathamS. R. (Eds.). (1999). The American medical ethics revolution: How the AMA’s code of ethics has transformed physicians’ relationships to patients, professionals, and society. Johns Hopkins University Press.
3.
Ben-AriA.EnoshG. (2020). Dialectics, power, and knowledge construction in qualitative research: Beyond dichotomy. Routledge.
4.
BoserS. (2007). Power, ethics, and the IRB: Dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1060–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407308220
5.
BoskC. L.De VriesR. G. (2004). Bureaucracies of mass deception: Institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 595(1), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716204266913
6.
BradleyC. P.MacFarlaneA. (2018). Approving a participatory research proposal: Perspectives from a research ethics committee chair and a researcher in Ireland. In BanksS.Brydon-MillerM. (Eds.), Ethics in participatory research for health and social well-being (pp. 165–166). Routledge.
7.
CeciS. J.PetersD.PlotkinJ. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40(9), 994–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.9.994
8.
CohenJ. (1999). The federal perspective on IRBs. APS Observer, 12(9), 6–19.
9.
ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
10.
DavisonC. M.BrownM.MoffittP. (2006). Student researchers negotiating consent in northern aboriginal communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690600500207
11.
de Albuquerque RochaK.VasconcelosS. M. (2019). Compliance with national ethics requirements for human-subject research in non-biomedical sciences in Brazil: A changing culture?Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0028-2
12.
De VriesR.DeBruinD. A.GoodgameA. (2004). Ethics review of social, behavioral and economic research: Where should we go from here?Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1404_6
13.
DingwallR. (2008). The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Twenty-First Century Society, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450140701749189
14.
DuBoisJ. M.JamesM. (2004). Is compliance a professional virtue of researchers? Reflections on promoting the responsible conduct of research. Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1404_8
15.
EdwardsJ. L.KirchinS.HuxtableR. (2004). Research ethics committees and paternalism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 88–91. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2002.000166
EnoshG.Ben-AriA. (2010). Cooperation and conflict in qualitative research: A dialectical approach to knowledge production. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309348503
18.
EnoshG.DoronI.TzafrirS. S. (Novemeber, 2015). The development and structure of research Ethical Review Boards (ERBs) in the social sciences in Israel. A research proposal submitted to the Israeli Science Fund.
19.
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(3), 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989909599740
20.
FitzpatrickE. F. M.MartiniukA. L. C.D’AntoineH.OscarJ.CarterM. (2016). Seeking consent for research with indigenous communities: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 17, Article 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0139-8
21.
GontcharovI. (2017). A new wave of positivism in the social sciences: Regulatory capture and conceptual constraints in the governance of research involving humans (Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2861908
22.
GuilleminM.GillamL.RosenthalD.BolithoA. (2012). Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(3), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.38
23.
GutaA.NixonS.GahaganJ.FieldenS. (2012). “Walking along beside the researcher”: How Canadian REBs/IRBs are responding to the needs of community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fjer.2012.7.1.17
HedgecoeA. (2009). “A form of practical machinery”: The origins of research ethics committees in the UK, 1967-1972. Medical History, 53(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300000211
27.
HedgecoeA.CarvalhoF.LobmayerP.RakaF. (2006). Research ethics committees in Europe: Implementing the directive, respecting diversity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(8), 483–486. http://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.013888
28.
IsraelM.HayI. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists. Sage.
29.
JonsenA. R. (2000). A short history of medical ethics. Oxford University Press.
30.
Keith-SpiegelP.KoocherG. P. (2005). The ERB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit?Ethics & Behavior, 15(4), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1504_5
31.
Keith-SpiegelP.KoocherG. P.TabachnickB. (2006). What scientists want from their research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.67
32.
KoocherG. P. (2013). Ethical considerations in clinical psychology research. In ComerJ. S.KendallP. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of research strategies for clinical psychology (pp. 395–412). Oxford University Press.
33.
LeventhalG. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship. In GergenK.GreenbergM.WillisR. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Plenum Press.
LincolnY. S.TierneyW. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262361
36.
MalouffJ. M.SchutteN. S. (2005). Academic psychologists’ perspective on the human research ethics review process. Australian Psychologist, 40(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060512331317166
37.
MarzanoM. (2007). Informed consent, deception, and research freedom in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406297665
38.
OakesJ. M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator’s guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 443–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/019384102236520
39.
OpsalT.WolgemuthJ.CrossJ.KaantaT.DickmannE.ColomerS.Erdil-MoodyZ. (2016). “There are no known benefits . . .”: Considering the risk/benefit ratio of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 26(8), 1137–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580109
40.
PearsonC. R.ParkerM.ZhouC.DonaldC.FisherC. B. (2019). A culturally tailored research ethics training curriculum for American Indian and Alaska Native communities: A randomized comparison trial. Critical Public Health, 29(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2018.1434482
41.
PerryK. H. (2011). Ethics, vulnerability, and speakers of other languages: How university IRBs (do not) speak to research involving refugee participants. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(10), 899–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411425006
42.
PetrovaE.DewingJ.CamilleriM. (2016). Confidentiality in participatory research: Challenges from one study. Nursing Ethics, 23(4), 442–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733014564909
43.
RaudonisB. M. (1992). Ethical considerations in qualitative research with hospice patients. Qualitative Health Research, 2(2), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239200200207
44.
RichardsonS.McMullanM. (2007). Research ethics in the UK: What can sociology learn from health?Sociology, 41(6), 1115–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507082318
45.
RickhamP. P. (1964). Responsibility in investigations on human subjects: Statements by medical research council. British Medical Journal, 2, 178–180. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5402.178
46.
RubinS. (2011). Ethics at Israeli universities: Unlearned lessons from professional ethics. Medicine and Law, 30(1), 65–78.
47.
SchragZ. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. John Hopkins University Press.
ShawS.BoyntonP. M.GreenhalghT. (2005). Research governance: Where did it come from, what does it mean?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(11), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.98.11.496
SlowtherA.BoyntonP.ShawS. (2006). Research governance: Ethical issues. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(2), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.2.65
StarkL. (2010). The science of ethics: Deception, the resilient self, and the APA code of ethics, 1966-1973. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 46(4), 337–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.20468
54.
SwaugerM. (2009). No kids allowed!!! How IRB ethics undermine qualitative researchers from achieving socially responsible ethical standards. Race, Gender & Class, 16, 63–81.
van den HoonaardW. C. (2013a). The “ethics rupture” summit, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, October 25–28, 2012. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.1.3
58.
van den HoonaardW. C. (2013b). The social and policy contexts of the New Brunswick declaration on research ethics, integrity, and governance: A commentary. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.2.104
59.
van den HoonaardW. C. (2016). The New Brunswick declaration on research ethics, integrity, and governance. Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics, 7, 2. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9627.1000268
60.
WainwrightP.SaundersJ. (2004). What are local issues? The problem of the local review in research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(3), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2003.004051
