In this article, the authors trace the emergence of an institutional discourse of ethical research and interrogate its effects in constituting what ethical research is taken to be and how ethical researchers are configured. They illuminate the dissonance between this regime of truth and research practice and the implications for the injunction to respect others, illustrating their case with instances from their interview study with anorexic teenage girls. The authors propose that conceptualising the regulation of research ethics as an institutional discourse opens up the possibility for asserting counterdiscourses that place relational ethics at the center of moral decision making in research.
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 515-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
Benhabib, S. (1987). The generalized other and the concrete other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan controversy and feminist theory. In S. Benhabib & D. Cornell (Eds.), Feminism as critique: On the politics of gender (pp. 77-95). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
4.
Butler, J., Laclau, E., & Zizek, S. (2004). Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left. In S. Salih & J. Butler, The Judith Butler reader (pp. 258-277). Maldan, MA: Blackwell .
5.
Cannella, G. (2004). Regulatory power: Can a feminist poststructuralist engage in research oversight?Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 235-245.
6.
Castel, R. (1999). From dangerousness to risk. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 281-298). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Cave, E., & Holm, S. (2003). Milgram and Tuskegee: Paradigm research projects in bioethics. Health Care Analysis, 11(1), 27-40.
8.
Chiapello, E., & Fairclough, N. (2002). Understanding the new management ideology. A trans-disciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism. Discourse and Society, 13(2), 185-208.
9.
Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
11.
Erickson, F. (1996). On the evolution of qualitative approaches in educational research: From Adam's task to Eve's. Australian Educational Researcher, 23(2), 1-15.
12.
Feder, K.E. (1999). Love's labor. Essays on women, equality, and dependency . New York: Routledge.
13.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry , 10(2), 261-280.
14.
Halse, C. (2004). Disquiet on the research front: Surveying the battle ground between researchers and human research ethics committees. Proceedings of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics Conference, Sydney. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for International Corporate Governance Research, Victoria University.
15.
Halse, C. (2006). Writing/reading a life: The rhetorical practice of autobiography. Auto/Biography, 14(2), 95-115.
16.
Halse, C., & Honey, A. (2005). Unravelling ethics: Illuminating the moral dilemmas of research ethics. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4), 2142-2161.
17.
Humphreys, L. (1975). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places . Chicago: Aldinede Gruyter.
18.
Johnson, J.M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 103-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Keenan, T. (1997). Fables of responsibility: Aberrations and predicaments in ethics and politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in education: Within/against . Geelong, Victoria, Canada: Deakin University Press.
21.
Lincoln, Y.S. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219-234.
22.
Loue, S. (2000). Textbook of research ethics: Theory and practice . New York: Plenum.
23.
McNeill, P. (1993). The ethics and politics of human experimentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
MedicalResearch Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and EngineeringResearch Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (1998). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
25.
National Health and Medical Research Council. ( 1999). National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra, Australia: AusInfo .
26.
The Nuremberg Code. (1949). In A. Mitscherlich & F. Mielke (Eds.), Doctors of infamy: The story of the Nazi medical crimes (pp. xxiii-xxv). New York: Schuman.
27.
Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul of the private self (2nd ed.). London: Free Association Books.
28.
Strathern, M. (1997). “Improving ratings”: Audit in the British university system. European Review, 5(3), 305-321.
29.
Strathern, M. (Ed.). (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.
30.
Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge .
31.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ( 2005, June 23). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects . Retrieved September 1, 2005, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
32.
Van den Hoonaard, W.C. (2001). Is research-ethics review a moral panic?The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38(1), 19-36.
33.
Walker, M. (1997). Moral understanding: A feminist study in ethics . New York: Routledge.
34.
World Medical Association. (1964). Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved September 1, 2005, from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/helsinki.html
35.
Wright, D. (2004). Creative nonfiction and the academy: A cautionary tale. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 202-206.
