“The search for knowledge about ourselves and the
world around us is a fundamental human endeavour.
Research is a natural extension of this desire to understand
and to improve the world in which we live” (TCPS, 2022).
The purposes of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) are to ensure that the rights and privacy of research participants are protected, to ensure the feasibility of research plans, and to carry out independent examinations of research proposals. Athabasca University’s Research Office has a mandate to ensure that research proposals follow accepted practices and principles of ethical research involving human participants. Athabasca University, as well as most Canadian university research committees, follow the guidelines of the Government of Canada’s document Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022). The document places particular importance on: “Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare and Justice” (TCPS, 2022). These qualities of ethical research were recognized in the week 2 readings. The week 3 readings discussed the importance of REBs in ensuring compliance, with recognition that there may be challenges involved in achieving this ideal.
In their article Critical Prison Research and University Research Ethics Boards: Homogenization of Inquiry and Policing of Carceral Knowledge, Balfour & Martel discuss how such challenges are negotiated between research teams and REBs. In the form of case studies, they document the critical review process and analyze negotiated compromises and modifications to the original research design. The REB review process is meant to address concerns of REB reviewers and researchers, and to carefully examine research proposals. Final ethics approval is granted when concerns are satisfactorily resolved. “The TCPS2 includes provisions for reconsiderations of REB decisions…and for appeals of ethical refusals after reconsiderations” (Balfour & Martel, 2018, p. 230). Balfour & Martel argue for a more flexible approach, and to consider provisions for unconventional research designs. I believe value lies in the guidance and advice from a panel of expert reviewers, who can identify potential inconsistencies and issues that I, as a novice researcher, may not have anticipated.
Given what I have learned from the unit 2 readings and discussions, as well as feedback from my instructor and peers, the way I would conduct research in my chosen area has been affected by what I’ve read. For example, I would aim to ensure participants are informed about research details, the potential impact on them, the benefits of their contribution, the measures to protect their privacy, and that their participation is entirely voluntary, and can be withdrawn at any time. I would refine my research question to: What positive outcomes might be realized through integrating visual arts within the curriculum of History, Maths and Sciences? Upon application for REB approval, I would refer to the readings and thoughts presented in unit 2. Following the principles of reflexivity, as I proceed, I suspect that through the continual review process, further changes will likely develop.
References:
Athabasca University. (2016). Ethical conduct for research involving humans policy. Athabasca University. https://www.athabascau.ca/university-secretariat/_documents/policy/ethical-cond-research-inv-humans-policy.pdf.
Athabasca University. (2024). Ethics. Athabasca University. https://www.athabascau.ca/research/ethics/index.html.
Panel on Research Ethics. (2022). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022). Government of Canada. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2022.html.
Balfour, G., & Martel, J. (2018). Critical Prison Research and University Research Ethics Boards: Homogenization of Inquiry and Policing of Carceral Knowledge. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 225-246.
Study Guide, MAIS 602 Moodle.
Comments