FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W43501654> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W43501654 endingPage "74" @default.
• W43501654 startingPage "69" @default.
• W43501654 abstract "Introduction Analyses of research ethics tend to characterize ethical review and its components as a linear process of submission, review, revision, research conduct and reporting. Recommendations to improve research ethics usually seek to provide a way to better support this linear process through improved guidance, training, regulation, institutional power or legal authority. We refer to this as a linear model of research ethics governance. Recommendations on this model implicitly recognize that research is influenced by a complex web of relations. Recent discussion about conflicts of interest and research ethics also recognizes that research review and standards are subject to a web of influences. We suggest a cultural model of research ethics governance or stewardship that explicitly acknowledges that research and research ethics are subject to complex social influences that are simultaneously antagonistic and supportive of the goals of research ethics. These influences inevitably shape even the standards, practices and structures of research ethics. Recognizing this embeddedness is more than a clever social analysis--it locates research ethics as one of many activities in an arena of social action and makes it possible to identify and evaluate the presumptions that have shaped the goals of research ethics as well as a wider range of means for achieving them. The Linear Model of Research Ethics Discussions of research ethics are rooted in the linear characterization of a process that begins with a research proposal and passes step-wise through stages of review and revision to be approved, implemented and reported. Research ethics scholarship has generally utilized the linear model in an attempt to directly influence research activities to promote high quality and ethical research. Recommendations to improve research ethics usually seek to provide a way to better support this linear process through improved guidance, training, regulation, institutional power or legal authority. As a result, the field of research ethics has been dominated by discussions of ethics review, ethical regulations and guidelines, and forms such as informed consent. In The Governance of Health Research Involving Human Subjects, (1) Michael McDonald characterizes the practice of human subject ethics review in Canada as the funnel-like reduction of complexity into an inappropriately narrow review process: In short, ethics is funnelled into a bureaucratic process, and the process itself is reduced to a bare minimum. That bare minimum consists of the tangible parts--consent forms and other items, like adverse incident reports.... An important general result of this funnelling and narrowing down of ethical concerns is that important issues are missed at all levels and at all stages.... More generally in terms of governance processes and structures designed to promote ethical RIHS, the REB is seen as the focal institutional tool and in turn its role is defined in terms of front-end research protocol approval. This ignores other possible tools or structures for promoting ethical research. It also ties too much of ethics in research to a particular stage--a very preliminary one at that-- taken in isolation from the rest of the research process. The big picture is missed--concerning the larger cultural environment of research. The funnel example demonstrates the bureaucratization of research ethics--how a broad range of research ethics issues, when channelled through the administrative mechanisms of review and consent, end up neglecting the original complexity. Discussions of conflicts of interest in relation to research ethics also make explicit concerns about how diverse influences on research shape the research agenda. (2) Some of the most oft-cited influences on research and the ethics of research in practice include: industry influence;; directed calls for research proposals by funding agencies; private funding of research; matched funding requirements; influence of disease-based and community-based groups; and patterns of health care funding. …" @default.
• W43501654 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W43501654 creator A5025130159 @default.
• W43501654 creator A5069755572 @default.
• W43501654 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W43501654 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W43501654 title "A cultural understanding of research ethics governance." @default.
• W43501654 cites W2049563195 @default.
• W43501654 cites W2087745172 @default.
• W43501654 cites W2129889855 @default.
• W43501654 cites W629391296 @default.
• W43501654 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16459417" @default.
• W43501654 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W43501654 type Work @default.
• W43501654 sameAs 43501654 @default.
• W43501654 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W43501654 countsByYear W435016542012 @default.
• W43501654 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W43501654 hasAuthorship W43501654A5025130159 @default.
• W43501654 hasAuthorship W43501654A5069755572 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C153997805 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C178125196 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C197549326 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C39389867 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C59377095 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C63063934 @default.
• W43501654 hasConcept C93474598 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C127413603 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C144024400 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C153997805 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C162324750 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C17744445 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C178125196 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C187736073 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C197549326 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C199539241 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C2778061430 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C36289849 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C39389867 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C55587333 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C59377095 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C63063934 @default.
• W43501654 hasConceptScore W43501654C93474598 @default.
• W43501654 hasIssue "2-3" @default.
• W43501654 hasLocation W435016541 @default.
• W43501654 hasOpenAccess W43501654 @default.
• W43501654 hasPrimaryLocation W435016541 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2047524396 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2054590598 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2121684001 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2375742282 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2745440375 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2761048674 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2776693260 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2893168815 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W2997750220 @default.
• W43501654 hasRelatedWork W1792811872 @default.
• W43501654 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W43501654 isParatext "false" @default.
• W43501654 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W43501654 magId "43501654" @default.
• W43501654 workType "article" @default.