Subject positions in research ethics committee letters: a discursive analysis

Ethical review of applications to conduct research projects continues to be a focus of scrutiny and controversy. We argue that attention to the actual practices of ethical review has the potential to inform debate. We explore how research ethics committees (RECs) establish their position and authority through the texts they use in their correspondence with applicants. Using a discursive analysis applied to 260 letters, we identify four positions of particular interest: RECs positioned as disinterested and responsible; as representing the interests of potential participants; as facilitating ethically sound, high-quality research; and as engaged in dialogue. These positions are used strategically to deflect criticism or complaint. This analysis has implications for reducing contestation between researchers and RECs, suggesting that more dialogic rather than hierarchical approaches to positioning might be helpful.

[1]  M. Dixon-Woods,et al.  Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies. , 2009, Social science & medicine.

[2]  A. Bryman,et al.  Doing accountability: a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters. , 2009, Sociology of health & illness.

[3]  Jeremy W Tomlinson,et al.  Regulation—the real threat to clinical research , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  S. Derbyshire.  The Ethical Dilemma of Ethical Committees , 2008 .

[5]  S. Reeves,et al.  Discourse Analysis , 2018, Understanding Communication Research Methods.

[6]  M. Dixon-Woods,et al.  Regulation and the social licence for medical research , 2008, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[7]  John Scott.  Modes of Power and the Re-Conceptualization of Elites , 2008 .

[8]  A. Wertheimer,et al.  Payment for research participation: a coercive offer? , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[9]  A. Bryman,et al.  An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[10]  P. Larkin,et al.  A Relational Ethical Dialogue With Research Ethics Committees , 2008, Nursing ethics.

[11]  C. Macrae.  Learning from patient safety incidents: Creating participative risk regulation in healthcare , 2008 .

[12]  J. Sullivan,et al.  Ethical Considerations in Clinical Psychology Research , 2008 .

[13]  T. Miller,et al.  Changing constructions of informed consent: qualitative research and complex social worlds. , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[14]  P. Alderson.  Competent children? Minors' consent to health care treatment and research. , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[15]  A. Bryman,et al.  Written work: the social functions of Research Ethics Committee letters. , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[16]  Y. Carter,et al.  NHS research ethics committees , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Richard Tutton,et al.  Shifting Subject Positions , 2007 .

[18]  D. Freshwater.  Discourse, responsible research and positioning the subject. , 2007, Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing.

[19]  S. Singh.  Ethics in research: a box of tissues , 2007 .

[20]  M. O’Reilly,et al.  Confidentiality and Autonomy: The Challenge(s) of Offering Research Participants a Choice of Disclosing Their Identity , 2007, Qualitative health research.

[21]  B. Doolin,et al.  Out of the laboratory: scientists’ discursive practices in their encounters with activists , 2007 .

[22]  S. Bremner.  Politeness, Power, and Activity Systems , 2006 .

[23]  A. Rosin,et al.  Subtle ethical dilemmas in geriatric management and clinical research , 2005, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[24]  S. Nurock,et al.  patients may be less risk averse than committees , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  C. Hardy,et al.  Discourse and Institutions , 2004 .

[26]  Keith R. McVilly,et al.  Ethics Guidelines for International, Multicenter Research Involving People with Intellectual Disabilities1,2,3,4 , 2004 .

[27]  O. O’neill,et al.  Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. , 2004, Clinical medicine.

[28]  Fiona Haines,et al.  Regulation and Risk: Occupational Health and Safety on the Railways , 2004 .

[29]  J. Törrönen.  The Concept of Subject Position in Empirical Social Research , 2001 .

[30]  N. Poythress,et al.  Improving understanding of research consent disclosures among persons with mental illness. , 2001, Psychiatric services.

[31]  Simeon Yates,et al.  Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader , 2001 .

[32]  Bridget M. Hutter,et al.  Regulation and Risk: Occupational Health and Safety on the Railways , 2001 .

[33]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Qualitative researching with text, image and sound : a practical handbook , 2000 .

[34]  J. Osborne,et al.  Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  E. Bruera.  Ethical Issues in Palliative Care Research , 1994, Journal of palliative care.

[36]  B. Davies,et al.  Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves , 1990 .

[37]  G. Button,et al.  Talk and Social Organisation , 1988 .

[38]  J. M. Atkinson.  Structures of Social Action: Contents , 1985 .

[39]  Msmw.  The social transformation of american medicine. , 1983, The Western journal of medicine.

[40]  D. Silverman.  Qualitative research : theory, method and practice , 2004 .

[41]  Marc Taylor,et al.  Research governance framework for health and social care. , 2002, Health & social care in the community.

[42]  A. Giddens.  The consequences of modernity , 1990 .

[43]  Anita M. Pomerantz.  Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[44]  Philip C. Kendall,et al.  Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology , 1982 .