Abstract
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are increasingly institutionalised as a feature of research practice, but have remained strangely neglected by social scientists. In this paper, we argue that analysis of letters from RECs to researchers offers important insights into how RECs operate. We report a traditional content analysis and an ethnographic content analysis of 141 letters to researchers, together with an analysis of the organisational and institutional arrangements for RECs in the UK. We show that REC letters perform three important social functions. First, they define what is deemed by a REC to be ethical practice for any particular application, and confer authority on that definition. They do this actively, through comments on particular aspects of proposals, and passively, through silences about other aspects. Second, they provide an account of the work of the REC, and function as a form of institutional display. Third, they specify the nature of the relationship between the REC and the applicant, casting the applicant in a supplicant role and requiring forms of docility. Writing and reading REC letters require highly specific competences, and engage both parties in a Bourdieusian “game” that discourages challenges from researchers. The authority of RECs’ decisions derives not from their appeal to the moral superiority of any ethical position, but through their place in the organisational structure and the social positioning of the parties to the process thus implied. Letters are the critical point at which RECs act on researchers and their projects.
Highlights
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) have become increasingly institutionalised as an element of research practice worldwide and are charged with heavy responsibilities in the regulation and ethical conduct of research
In this paper we explore some of the ways in which RECs might be understood by taking up Prior’s (2002) proposal that documents are an important source for social science theorising
In asking “what do REC letters do?”, we propose that letters function socially in a number of important ways, and we suggest some of the consequences of this
Summary
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) have become increasingly institutionalised as an element of research practice worldwide and are charged with heavy responsibilities in the regulation and ethical conduct of research. In healthcare settings they are commonplace, yet surprisingly neglected by sociologists as an object of study. In this paper we explore some of the ways in which RECs might be understood by taking up Prior’s (2002) proposal that documents are an important (though often ignored) source for social science theorising. In asking “what do REC letters do?”, we propose that letters function socially in a number of important ways, and we suggest some of the consequences of this. We will argue that letters are acts themselves rather than mere reports of acts
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
