'Text-work' in Research Ethics Review: The significance of documents in and beyond committee meetings

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bisaillon, L. 2012. An analytic glossary to social inquiry using institutional and political activist ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 11 (5):607–27. doi:10.1177/160940691201100506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden, D. 1994. The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, R., D. Epstein, and J. Latimer. 2009. Accounting for ethos or programmes for conduct? The brave new world of research ethics committees. Sociological Review 57 (4):727–49. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2009.01869.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clapp, J. T., K. A. Gleason, and S. Joffe. 2017. Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters. Social Science & Medicine 194:25–33. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corrigan, O. 2003. Empty ethics: The problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health & Illness 25 (7):768–92. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9566.2003.00369.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Health. 2005. Mental Capacity Act. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Dingwall, R. 2006. An exercise in fatuity: Research governance and the emasculation of HSR. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 11,4:193–94. doi:10.1258/135581906778476580.
   Google Scholar
• Dingwall, R. 2016. The social costs of ethics regulation. In The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research-ethics review, ed. W. C. Van Den Hoonaard and A. Hamilton, 25-42. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, M., P. Phillips, and E. Yule. 2006. The research ethics review process and ethics review narratives. Ethics & Behavior 16 (4):377–95. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1604_7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillemin, M., and L. Gillam. 2004. Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’ in research. Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2):261–80. doi:10.1177/1077800403262360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 2009. Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 12 (3):211–25. doi:10.1080/13645570802170288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 2015. On ethical principles for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 18 (4):433–49. doi:10.1080/13645579.2014.924169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 2018. Response to Sheehan et al’s ‘In defence of governance: Ethics review and social research’. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (10):717–18. doi:10.1136/medethics-2017-104668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Research Authority 2017. Ethics review form (version 2.2 final 01.09.2017, HRA). https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/res-and-recs/research-ethics-committee-members-area/guidance-and-policy-for-rec-members/.(accessed May 4th, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Health Research Authority. 2018. Research ethics committees overview. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/res-and-recs/research-ethics-committees-overview/ (accessed May 4TH, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Hedgecoe, A. 2008. Research ethics review and the sociological research relationship. Sociology 42 (5):873–86. doi:10.1177/0038038508094567.
   Google Scholar
• Hedgecoe, A. M. 2012. Trust and regulatory organisations: The role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review. Social Studies of Science 42 (5):662–83. doi:10.1177/0306312712446364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm, S. 2016. The job of ‘ethics committees’ should be ethically informed code consistency review. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (7):488. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, S., H. Thomas, and R. Martin. 2014. Medical dominance within research ethics committees. Accountability in Research 21 (6):366–88. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.891944.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Israel, M.A. and I.M. Hay. 2006. Research ethics for social scientists: Between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. London, UK: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kittay, E. F. 2007. Beyond autonomy and paternalism: The caring transparent self in autonomy and paternalism. In Reflections on the theory and practice of health care, ed. T. Nys, Y. Denier, and T. Vandevelde, 23-71. Leuven: Peeters.
   Google Scholar
• Klitzman, R. 2015. The ethics police? The struggle to make human research safe. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manson, Neil C., and O'Neill, Onora. 2007. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, A., and A. Donnelly. 2015. The job of ‘ethics committees’. Journal of Medical Ethics 44::481–87. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102688.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murphy, E., and R. Dingwall. 2007. Informed Consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science and Medicine 65 (11):2223–34. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, M., M. Dixon‐Woods, E. Angell, R. Ashcroft, and A. Bryman. 2009. Doing accountability: A discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters. Sociology of Health & Illness 31 (2):246–61. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01132.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Neill, O. 2004. Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. Clinical Medicine 4 (3):269-76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prodinger, B., and S. Turner. 2013. Using Institutional Ethnography to explore how social policies infiltrate into daily life. Journal of Occupational Science 20 (4):357–69. doi:10.1080/14427591.2013.808728.
   Google Scholar
• Savulescu, J. 2017. The structure of ethics review: Expert ethics committees and the challenge of voluntary research euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (7):491–93. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherzinger, G., and M. Bobbert. 2017. Evaluation of research ethics committees: Criteria for the ethical quality of the review process. Accountability in Research 24 (3):152–76. doi:10.1080/08989621.2016.1273778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan, M. 2013. Do we need research ethics committees? Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):485. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan, M., M. Dunn, and K. Sahan. 2018. In defence of governance: Ethics review and social research. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (10):710–16. doi:10.1136/medethics-2017-104443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. 1990. Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. 1999. Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations. Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. 2001. Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies 7 (2):159–98. doi:10.1080/10245280108523557.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. 2006. Incorporating texts into ethnographic practice. In Institutional ethnography as practice, ed. Dorothy E. Smith, 65-88. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley, L. 2018. Working with Dorothy Smith: Texts in action. Whites Writing Whiteness. www.whiteswritingwhiteness.ed.ac.uk/overviews/working-with-smith (accessed October 10, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Stark, L. 2012. Behind closed doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research. London: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, L. 2013. Reading trust between the lines. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 22:391–99. doi:10.1017/S096318011300025X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, N. 2010. Institutional ethnography, auto ethnography, and narrative: An argument for incorporating multiple methodologies. Qualitative Research 10 (1):5–25. doi:10.1177/1468794109348680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Hoonaard, W. 2011. The seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. Toronto [Ont.]: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Den Hoonaard, W. C., and A. Hamilton. 2016. Ethics rupture summit in the context of current trends in research ethics review. In The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research-ethics review, ed. W. C. Van Den Hoonaard and A. Hamilton, 5-24. Toronto. London: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiles, R. 2013. What are qualitative research ethics? What is? Research methods series. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. 2013. Declaration of Helsinki. Adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki 1964 as amended by the 64th WMA General Assembly, Brazil. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ (accessed October 10, 2018).
   Google Scholar