Drawing from educational research conducted in Canada and Mexico, university researchers explore how culture complicates both the ethics review process and the translation of ethical research principles into practice. University researchers in Canadian contexts seek approval from university Research Ethics Boards to conduct research, following policies outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. In this article, the authors consider some cross-cultural ethical dilemmas in relation to educational research, which is often qualitative and interpretive in nature and conducted in schooling settings. Drawing from educational research, the authors conduct both in Canada and in an international context an exploration of how culture complicates both the ethics review process and the translation of ethical research principles into practice. As a result of their experiences, the authors focus specifically on issues related to consent, reciprocity, anonymity and confidentiality, and data representation.
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (2002). Do university lawyers and the police define research values? In W. C. van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 34-42). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press .
2.
Anderson, P.V. (1996). Ethics, Institutional Review Boards, and the involvement of human participants in composition research. In P. Mortensen & G. Kirsch (Eds.), Ethics and representation in qualitative studies of literacy (pp. 260-285). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English .
3.
Barrett, R.J., & Parker, D.B. (2003). Rites of consent: Negotiating research participation in diverse cultures. Monash Bioethics Review, 22(2), 9-26.
4.
Borland, K., (1991). “That's not what I said”: Interpretive conflict in oral narrative research. In S. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women's words (pp. 63-75). New York: Routledge .
5.
Bosk, C., & DeVries, R.G. (2004). Bureaucracies of mass deception: Institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. The ANNALS of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, 595(1), 249-263.
6.
Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Canadian Institutes of Health. (2002). Memorandum of understanding on the roles and responsibilities in the management of federal grants and awards (MOU). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
7.
Carlen, P. (1983). Women's imprisonment: A study in social control . London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul.
8.
Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley: University of California Press .
9.
Dei, G.J.S. (1999). Knowledge and politics of social change: The implications of anti-racism. British Journal of Sociology of Education , 20(3), 395-409.
10.
Faith, K. (1993). Unruly women: The politics of confinement and resistance. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Press Gang.
11.
Fine. M., & Weis, L. (1996). Writing the “wrongs” of fieldwork: Confronting our own research/writing dilemmas in urban ethnographies. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(3), 251-274.
12.
Gormley, L. (2005). Insights for comparative education researchers from the anti-racist education discourse on epistemology, ontology and axiology . In G. S. Dei & G. Johal (Eds.), Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies (pp. 95-123). New York: Peter Lang.
13.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry , 10(2), 261-280.
14.
Kellner, F. (2002). Yet another coming crisis? Coping with guidelines from the Tri-Council. In W. C. van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 26-33). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
15.
McNeil, P.M. (1993). The ethics and politics of human experimentation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
O'Neill, P. (2002). Good intentions and awkward outcomes: Ethical gatekeeping in field research. In W. C. van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 17-25). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
17.
Patai, D. (1991). US academics and third world women: Is ethical research possible? In S. B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women's words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 137-153). New York: Routledge.
18.
Patai, D., (1992). US academics and third world women: Is ethical research possible? In S. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women's words (pp. 137-153). New York: Routledge.
19.
Scheurich, P., & Young, M. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased?Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4-16.
20.
Sieber, J.E. (1992). Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal review boards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
21.
Simonelli, J., & Earle, D. (2003). Meeting resistance: Autonomy, development, and “informed permission” in Chiapas, Mexico. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 74-89.
22.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee. (2004). Giving voice to the spectrum. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics. Retrieved October 12, 2004, from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/workgroups/sshwc/reporttopre.cfm
23.
Smith, T.L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: Univeristy of Otago Press.
24.
Stack, C. (1996). Writing ethnography: Feminist critical practice . In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemma in fieldwork (pp. 96-106). Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Stanfield , J.H. II, (1993). Epistemological considerations . In J. H. Stanfield, II, & R. M. Dennis (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp. 16-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Stanfield, J.H. II, (1994). Ethnic modeling in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative inquiry (pp. 175-188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Tilley, S.A. (1998a). Becoming familiar: Exploring stories of schooling with women in prison. Unpublished PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
28.
Tilley, S.A. (1998b). Conducting respectful research: A critique of practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 23, 316-328.
29.
Tilley, S.A., & Powick, K.D. (2002). Distanced data: Transcribing other people's research tapes. TheCanadian Journal of Education, 27(2/3), 269-287.
30.
Turner, L. (2003). Bioethics and anthropology: Bridges and barriers to transdisciplinary research. Monash Bioethics Review, 22(3), 12-17.
31.
Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. (1998, with 2000 , 2002 updates). Retrieved July 30, 2005, from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/policystatement.cfm
32.
University of Toronto, Office of the Vice-President, Research & Associate Provost. (2004). Ethics review at the University of Toronto. Retrieved July 9, 2005, from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/tps/ethics/ethics_2004StuConf.ppt
33.
van den Hoonaard, W. C. (Ed.). (2002a). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
34.
van den Hoonaard, W.C. (2002b). Introduction: Ethical norming and qualitative research. In W. C. van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 3-16). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press .
35.
Van Maanen, J. (2005). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Walford, G. (2005). Research ethical guidelines and anonymity. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 28(1), 83-93.
37.
Wax, M. ( 1980). Paradoxes of “consent” to the practices of fieldwork. Social Problems, 27, 272-283.
