Clinical Ethics > Volume 4, Number 4 > Pp. 187-194

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by O'Reilly, M. Articles by Dixon-Woods, M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Empirical Ethics

Subject positions in research ethics committee letters: a discursive analysis

Michelle O'Reilly, Natalie Armstrong and Mary Dixon-Woods    

Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Adrian Building, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

E-mail: Md11{at}le.ac.uk

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.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?