What Can We Learn From the Discussion on Anglophone Ethics Committees? An Analysis of Selected (Contested) Issues

Main Article Content

Adrianna Surmiak


Ethics committees enjoy both a long history and a strong presence in Anglophone countries, although simultaneously their functioning provokes debate in the social research community. In this paper, I analyse selected contested issues that revolve around three questions: 1) Who do ethics committees protect, and who should they? 2) Should ethics committees protect all research participants in the same way? 3) When can ethics committees intervene in the methodology of the research project under review? Analysing these disputes is important since it may help to improve the functioning of ethics committees for social research in Poland. Their number has increased significantly in the last decade, but this has not been accompanied by a broader reflection on either their functioning or the concerns associated with this kind of control.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Surmiak, Adrianna. 2023. “What Can We Learn From the Discussion on Anglophone Ethics Committees? An Analysis of Selected (Contested) Issues”. Diametros 19 (76):15-29. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1865.
Share |


Aldridge J. (2015), Participatory Research: Working with Vulnerable Groups in Research and Practice, Policy Press, Bristol.

American Sociological Association (2018), Code of Ethics, URL = https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/asa_code_of_ethics-june2018.pdf [dostęp 18.04.2023].

Blake M.K. (2015), Formality and Friendship: Research Ethics Review and Participatory Action Research, “ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies” 6 (3): 411–421.

Bond T. (2012), Ethical Imperialism or Ethical Mindfulness? Rethinking Ethical Review for Social Sciences, “Research Ethics” 8 (2): 97–112.

Bracken-Roche D., Bell E., Macdonald M.E. et al. (2017), The Concept of ‘Vulnerability’ in Research Ethics: An In-Depth Analysis of Policies and Guidelines, “Health Research Policy and Systems” 15 (1): 8.

Brown C., Spiro J., Quinton S. (2020), The Role of Research Ethics Committees: Friend or Foe in Educational Research? An Exploratory Study, “British Educational Research Journal” 46 (4): 747–769.

Brown N. (2023), Research Ethics in a Changing Social Sciences Landscape, “Research Ethics” 19 (2): 157–165.

Dickson-Swift V., James E.L., Kippen S. et al. (2007), Doing Sensitive Research: What Challenges Do Qualitative Researchers Face?, “Qualitative Research” 7 (3): 327–353.

Dingwall R. (2008), The Ethical Case Against Ethical Regulation in Humanities and Social Science Research, “21 Century Society” 3 (1): 1–12.

Peter E., Friedland J. (2017), Recognizing Risk and Vulnerability in Research Ethics: Imagining the “What Ifs?”, “Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics” 12 (2): 107–116.

Government of Canada (2018), The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, URL = https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2018.html [dostęp 30.12.2022].

Guillemin M., Gillam L., Rosenthal D. et al. (2012), Human Research Ethics Committees: Examining their Roles and Practices, “Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics” 7 (3): 38–49.

Haggerty K.D. (2004), Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics, “Qualitative Sociology” 27: 391–414.

Hammersley M. (2009), Against the Ethicists: On the Evils of Ethical Regulation, “International Journal of Social Research Methodology” 12 (3): 211–225.

Hedgecoe A. (2016), Reputational Risk, Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Review, “Sociology” 50 (3): 486–501.

Herrera C.D. (1999), Two Arguments for ‘Covert Methods’ in Social Research, “The British Journal of Sociology” 50 (2): 331–343.

Hickey A., Davis S., Farmer W. et al. (2022), Beyond Criticism of Ethics Review Boards: Strategies for Engaging Research Communities and Enhancing Ethical Review Processes, “Journal of Academic Ethics” 20: 549–567.

Huysamen M., Sanders T. (2021), Institutional Ethics Challenges to Sex Work Researchers: Committees, Communities, and Collaboration, “Sociological Research Online” 26 (4): 942–958.

Iphofen R. (2009), Ethical Decision Making in Social Research. A Practical Guide, Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Israel M., Hay I. (2006), Research Ethics for Social Scientists. Between Ethical Conduct and Regulatory Compliance, Sage, London, New Delhi.

Johnson T.S. (2008), Qualitative Research in Question: A Narrative of Disciplinary Power With/in the IRB, “Qualitative Inquiry” 14 (2): 212–232.

Lahman M.K.E. (2018), Ethics in Social Science Research. Becoming Culturally Responsive, Sage, Los Angeles.

LeCompte M.D., Schensul J.J. (2015), Ethics in Ethnography. A Mixed Methods Approach, Altamira Press, Lanham.

Librett M., Perrone D. (2010), Apples and Oranges: Ethnography and the IRB, “Qualitative Research” 10 (6): 729–747.

Lincoln Y.S., Tierney W.G. (2004), Qualitative Research and Institutional Review Boards, “Qualitative Inquiry” 10 (2): 219–234.

Luna F. (2014), ‘Vulnerability’, an Interesting Concept for Public Health: The Case of Older Persons, “Public Health Ethics” 7 (2): 180–194.

Martino A.S., Schormans A.F. (2018), When Good Intentions Backfire: University Research Ethics Review and the Intimate Lives of People Labeled with Intellectual Disabilities, “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research” 19 (3): art. 9.

McAreavey R., Muir J. (2011), Research Ethics Committees: Values and Power in Higher Education, “International Journal of Social Research Methodology” 14 (5): 391–405.

McLaughlin R.H., Alfaro-Velcamp T. (2015), The Vulnerability of Immigrants in Research: Enhancing Protocol Development and Ethics Review, “Journal of Academic Ethics” 13 (1): 27–43.

Melrose M. (2011), Regulating Social Research: Exploring the Implications of Extending Ethical Review Procedures in Social Research, “Sociological Research Online” 16 (2): 49–58.

Musoba G.D., Jacob S.A., Robinson L.J. (2014), The Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Faculty: Does the IRB Challenge Faculty Professionalism in the Social Sciences?, “The Qualitative Report” 19 (51): 1–14.

National Health and Medical Research Council (2018), National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, URL = https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018 [dostęp 30.12.2022].

Newmahr S., Hannem S. (2018), Surrogate Ethnography: Fieldwork, the Academy, and Resisting the IRB, “Journal of Contemporary Ethnography” 47 (1): 3–27.

Nicholls S.G., Brehaut J., Saginur R. (2012), Social Science and Ethics Review: A Question of Practice not Principle, “Research Ethics” 8 (2): 71–78.

Oliver C. (2021), Beyond-Human Ethics: The Animal Question in Institutional Ethical Reviews, “Area” 53 (4): 619–626.

Schrag Z.M. (2011), The Case against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences, “Research Ethics” 7 (4): 120–131.

Surmiak A. (2022), Etyka naukowych badań społecznych. Pomiędzy kodyfikacją i instytucjonalizacją a praktyką badawczą, “Diametros” 19 (74): 36–50.

Tamariz L., Medina H., Taylor J. et al. (2015), Are Research Ethics Committees Prepared for Community-Based Participatory Research?, “Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics” 10 (5): 488–495.

The Economic and Social Research Council (2021), Framework for Research Ethics, URL = https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/framework-for-research-ethics/our-core-principles/#contents-list [dostęp 20.04.2023].

USA Food and Drug Administration (2022), Code of Federal Regulations § 46.111 Criteria for IRB approval of research, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-A/section-46.111 [dostęp 21.04.2023].