Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reputational Risk, Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Review

      research-article
      Sociology
      SAGE Publications
      academic freedom, new public management, research ethics committees

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Drawing on scholarship around academic freedom and new public management, this article explores the way in which research ethics committees in UK universities (URECs) can come to exhibit behaviour – common in their US equivalents – that prioritises the reputational protection of their host institution over and above academic freedom and the protection of research subjects. Drawing on two case studies the article shows both how URECs can serve to restrict research that may be ‘embarrassing’ for a university and how, in high profile cases, university management come to use such committees as mechanisms for internal discipline.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Rationalising public participation in the health service: the case of research ethics committees.

          M Dyer (2004)
          This paper seeks to raise questions about the growing emphasis on public participation in decision-making in the health service. It examines the case study of lay participation on Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs'). In the light of contested theoretical conceptions of the value of lay participation and an absence of a centrally defined role this paper examines practice. It uses qualitative evidence collected in 45 semi-structured interviews with committee members and observations of twenty committee meetings. It examines members' own conceptualisations of lay involvement and the contributions they are able to make in meetings as a result of these conceptualisations. It concludes that without better-defined roles for lay members on these committees they do not possess the authority or knowledge to challenge the experts' technical rendering of research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Trust and regulatory organisations: the role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review.

            While trust is seen as central to most social relations, most writers, including sociologists of science, assume that modern trust relations--especially those in regulatory relationships - tend towards the impersonal. Drawing on ethnographic material from one kind of scientific oversight body--research ethics committees based in the UK NHS--this paper argues that interpersonal trust is crucial to regulatory decision-making and intimately bound up with the way in which these oversight bodies work, and that as such they build on, rather than challenge, the trust-based nature of the scientific community.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Shutdown of research at Duke sends a message.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sociology
                Sociology
                SOC
                spsoc
                Sociology
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                0038-0385
                25 June 2015
                June 2016
                : 50
                : 3
                : 486-501
                Affiliations
                [1-0038038515590756]Cardiff University, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Adam Hedgecoe, School of Social Science, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK. Email: hedgecoeam@ 123456cardiff.ac.uk
                Article
                10.1177_0038038515590756
                10.1177/0038038515590756
                4887816
                27330226
                bc767936-1876-4fea-845f-8fa89457944b
                © The Author(s) 2015

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                academic freedom,new public management,research ethics committees

                Comments

                Comment on this article