Making ethics review a learning institution: The Ethics Application Repository proof of concept

Abstract

The Ethics Application Repository is an open access, online repository of exemplary Institutional Review Board (ethics committee) application forms donated by scholars who want to gift some of their expertise and wisdom to novice researchers in the spirit of a public good. This article describes the background for the genesis of the project, the building of The Ethics Application Repository as a proof of concept and the initial supportive and critical feedback from graduate students, graduate advisors and Institutional Review Board members. The article also serves as a call for donations from qualitative researchers to enlarge and develop stage 2 of the project, the development of special collections featuring children, information research, innovative methodologies and community-based participatory research.

Keywords

data sharing ethics ethics committees institutional review boards research ethics committee The Ethics Application Repository

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Angell

Jackson

Ashcroft

. (2007) Is ‘inconsistency’ in research ethics committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection. Clinical Ethics 2(2): 92.

Angell

Sutton

Windridge

. (2006) Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 662–664.

Anthony

(2005) Consistency of ethics review. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/527 (accessed: 21 November 2012).

Boser

(2007) Power, ethics and the IRB. Dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry 13(8): 1060–1074.

Glaser

Strauss

(1968) Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Guillemin

Gillam

(2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’ in research. Qualitative Inquiry 10(2): 261–280.

Hammersley

Traianou

(2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Iphofen

(2009) Ethical Decision-Making in Social Research: A Practical Guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lincoln

Tierney

(2004) Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry 10(2): 219–234.

10.

Stark

(2012) Behind Closed Doors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

11.

Tolich

Fitzgerald

(2006) If ethics committees were designed for ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1: 71–78.

12.

Van den Eynden

(2008) Sharing research data and confidentiality: restrictions caused by deficient consent forms. Research Ethics Review 4(1): 37–38.

13.

Van den Eynden

Corti

(2009) Tensions between data sharing and data protection in research with people. SRA News, May, 12–15.

Making ethics review a learning institution: The Ethics Application Repository proof of concept – tear.otago.ac.nz

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References