‘Like the stranger at a funeral who cries more than the bereaved’: ethical dilemmas in ethnographic research with children

This article contributes to debates on the practicality and utility of prior ethical review in ethnography and qualitative research using an ethnography of children’s involvement in artisanal gold mining work in Ghana as a case study. Reflecting on dilemmas and obstacles encountered in attempts to employ prescribed institutional ethical guidance modelled for childhood research in the UK during the fieldwork, the discussion brings to attention some of the problems that can arise when ethical guidance is not anchored in the lived realities or value systems of the setting in which fieldwork is conducted. The article seeks to rejuvenate calls for more flexible and socio-culturally responsive ethical review and practice as an alternative to the prescriptive ethical regimes

A Professional Ethics for Researchers?

Historical research has shown that, at its inception, research ethics was conceived as distinct from existing discourses of professional ethics. Subsequently, this distinction has been maintained and, as a result, the discourse of research ethics appears to be an external to and independent of the practices it normatively analyses and comments upon. This chapter challenges these founding preconceptions and considers if research ethics can be understood as a professional ethics. Therefore, this chapter examines the criteria sociological research identifies as constitutive of a profession, and while one might conclude that research is obviously not formally instantiated as a profession, some of the sociological criteria have significant relevance. In this light it is argued that we might rethink the notion of research ethics in terms of a professional ethics. To do so would be to more clearly embed ethical discourse in the practice(s) of research, something that is consistent with the current turn to integrity

Herbal Medicines for Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE: We conducted systematic review to evaluate current evidence of herbal medicines (HMs) for Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Along with hand searches, relevant literatures were located from the electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycInfo, CNKI, 7 Korean Medical Databases and J-East until August, 2010 without language and publication status. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized controlled trials and randomized crossover trials, which evaluate HMs for idiopathic PD were selected for this review. Two independent authors extracted data from the relevant literatures and any disagreement was solved by discussion. RESULTS: From the 3432 of relevant literatures, 64 were included. We failed to suggest overall estimates of treatment effects on PD because of the wide heterogeneity of used herbal recipes and study designs in the included studies. When compared with placebo, specific effects were not observed in favor of HMs definitely. Direct comparison with conventional drugs suggested that there was no evidence of better effect for HMs. Many studies compared combination therapy with single active drugs and combination therapy showed significant improvement in PD related outcomes and decrease in the dose of anti-Parkinson's drugs with low adverse events rate. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is no conclusive evidence about the effectiveness and efficacy of HMs on PD. For establishing clinical evidence of HMs on PD, rigorous RCTs with sufficient statistical power should be promoted in future

Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.

BACKGROUND: The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change. MAIN TEXT: We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies. CONCLUSION: Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate

Methodological innovation and research ethics: forces in tension or forces in harmony?

This paper is an exploration of the tensions inherent in the interaction between ethics and methodological innovation. The authors focus on three cases of innovation in qualitative research methods in the social sciences: netnography, child-led research, and creative research methods. Using thematic analysis of data collected through semi-structured interviews with the innovators and commentators on the innovations, they discuss the cases in terms of ethical responsibly, the democratisation of research, matters of empowerment, and the relationship between research and the academy. The paper highlights the ways in which innovation does not necessarily equate to taking risks but rather to risk management: the innovators are cautious as much as creative, operating within the context of a culture in which procedural ethical regulation acts to limit methodological development, and in which they (and other users of their method/approach) communicate the safe qualities alongside the innovative qualities of their approac

Can deception be desirable?

Critics of deception in research allege harm to society, the discipline of psychology, the researchers and participants. However, neither empirical findings nor a reasonable-person' test seem to support those allegations. By and large, researchers who use deception consider its costs and benefits, and the kind and degree of deceit that is typically used in psychology is of a benevolent type. Moreover, participants prefer to participate in deception research rather than its non-deceptive alternatives. In the light of these premises, we argue that deception can be desirable, especially when considering cost and benefits to research participants