How can ethical review for research be less painful for researchers and the reviewers?
It seems that this is an area of concern among academics.
This is a quick review for Ethics Review Boards for Research With Human Participants: Past, Present, and Future authored by Maya Peled-Raz, Shay S. Tzafrir, Guy Enosh, Yael Efron, Israel (Issi) Doron and published in Qualitative Health Research in 2021.
The paper articulated a set of recommendations for a better Ethics Review Boards for Research after speaking to 27 academics from nine countries in four continents.
These are the five recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Work toward a transition from a review system to an advisory and validation system
- The idea here is to let the review process be perceived as a vehicle to promote research and not as impediment to research. This advisory stance would encourage researchers to more naturally strive to conduct research in an ethical fashion, which is the desired end goal.
Recommendation 2: Focus on respectful research approach to participants, rather than “ethical” research
- The emphasis is shifted to whether the study honours its participant in the best possible way, vis-a-vis harping on whether the whether the research is “ethical”. The latter seems to be the current mode of operation, which causes frustrations among researchers.
Recommendation 3: Build a procedure that focuses on feedback, rather than the process itself.
- With the end goal set on respecting research participants, the application and review process should be made less arduous because only that matter. Only when the achievement of the desired goal of respecting participants are likely jeopardised should the more careful scrutiny be applied.
Recommendation 4: Recognise that a unified examination need not necessarily be standardised
- Since study designs are often varied, flexibility in understanding the context of the study, participants, and the discipline and method involved is needed. A cookie-cutter approach to reviewing research may not be suitable for all studies.
Recommendation 5: Construct a feedback procedure in which researchers can respond to the review of their research
- Both researchers and the reviewers can both learn from the review process. Currently, the reviewers seldom hear what the researcher had to say. If the reviewing body can receive comments on the review process for the purposes of learning and self-improvement, reviewing of ethical applications would be a fruitful process for all.
As academic members, it is likely that we sit on both sides of the camp. Certainly, applying for ethical approval is a normal affair to most of us. Some of us may even be called upon to review or sit on such a board. Having these five recommendations in mind, and actualising them can mean less pain and frustration for everyone.