Normative Tensions in the Process of Institutionalization of Social Research Ethics: Towards a Multi-Level Model of Ethical Review
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Drawing on Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s concept of institutionalization, we reconstruct three structural normative tensions embedded in the development of formal systems of ethical review: between research autonomy and the institutional protection of research participants, between research autonomy and institutional responsibility, and between the bureaucratization of research ethics and reflexive research responsibility. We then analyze the context of the institutionalization of social research ethics in Poland, where the absence of uniform nationwide regulations fosters the coexistence of multiple models of ethical review. We argue that a single-level review model, based on uniform procedures applied to diverse research practices, may reinforce these normative tensions. We propose a multi-level model adapted to the level of risk for both participants and researchers, as well as to the methodological complexity of the research project. The model aims to mitigate normative tensions by reconciling procedural logic with reflexive research responsibility.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
How to Cite
References
Bell, K., Wynn, L. L. (2023). Research ethics committees, ethnographers and imaginations of risk. Ethnography, 24(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138120983862
Berger, P., Luckmann T. (1983). Społeczne tworzenie rzeczywistości (J. Niżnik, tłum.). Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3654
Brown, N. (2023). Research ethics in a changing social sciences landscape. Research Ethics 19(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221141011
Carniel, J., Hickey, A., Southey, K., Brömdal, A., Crowley-Cyr, L., Eacersall, D., Farmer, W., Gehrmann, R., Machin, T., Pillay, Y. (2023). The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes. Research Ethics, 19(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221147202
Christians, C. G. (2009). Etyka i polityka w badaniach jakościowych (P. Pluciński., tłum.). W: N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (red.), Metody badań jakościowych (t. 1, s. 207–244). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Connor, J., Copland, S., Owen, J. (2018). The infantilized researcher and research subject: ethics, consent and risk. Qualitative Research, 18(4), 400–415. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1468794117730686
Dingwall, R. (2008). The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Twenty-First Century Society, 3(1), 1–12. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17450140701749189
Galewicz, W. (2009). O etyce badań naukowych. Diametros, 19, 48–57. https:// doi.org/10.13153/diam.19.2009.330
Galewicz, W. (2026a). Nadregulacja i regulacyjna próżnia w polskiej etyce badań naukowych. PAUza Akademicka, 766, s. 2. http://pauza.krakow.pl/766_2026.pdf
Galewicz, W. (2026b). Kontrowersje etyki badań w naukach społecznych i humanistycznych. W: W. Galewicz (red.), Antologia etyki badań naukowych. Tom 2. Etyka badań w naukach społecznych (s. 9–52). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000049239.15922.a3
Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(3), 211–225. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13645570802170288.
Hammersley, M., Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research. Controversies and contexts. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957619
Hedgecoe, A. (2016). Reputational risk, academic freedom and research ethics review. Sociology, 50(3), 486–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515590756
Hickey, A., Davis, S., Farmer, W., Dawidowicz, J., Moloney, C., Lamont-Mills, A., Carniel, J., Pillay, Y., Akenson, D., Brömdal, A., Gehrmann, R., Mills, D., Kolbe-Alexander T., Machin T., Reich, S., Southey, K., Crowley-Cyr L., Watanabe, T., Davenport, J., […], Maxwell, J. (2022). Beyond criticism of ethics review boards: Strategies for engaging research communities and enhancing ethical review processes. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20, 549–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09430-4
Huysamen, M., Sanders, T. (2021). Institutional ethics challenges to sex work researchers: Committees, communities, and collaboration. Sociological Research Online, 26(4), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804211002847
Iphofen, R. (2009). Ethical decision-making in social research: A practical guide. Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, T. S. (2008). Qualitative research in question: A narrative of disciplinary power with/in the IRB. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(2), 212–232. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1077800407308821
Kolstoe, S. E., Durning, J., Yost, J., Aleksandrova-Yankulovska, S. (2023). Ranking research methodology by risk – a cross-sectional study to determine the opinion of research ethics committee members. Systematic Reviews, 12, artykuł 154. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02295-1
Kołakowski, L. (1967). Etyka bez kodeksu. W: L. Kołakowski, Kultura i fetysze. Zbiór rozpraw (s. 139–173). Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Lahman, M. K. E. (2018). Ethics in social science research. Becoming culturally responsive. Sage.
LeCompte, M. D., Schensul, J. J. (2015). Ethics in ethnography. A mixed methods approach. AltaMira Press.
Librett, M., Perrone, D. (2010). Apples and oranges: Ethnography and the IRB. Qualitative Research, 10(6), 729–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110380548
Lincoln, Y. S. (2009). Komisje etyczne i konserwatyzm metodologiczny. Wyzwania dla i ze strony paradygmatu fenomenologicznego (M. Niezgoda, tłum.) W: N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (red.), Metody badań jakościowych (t. 1, s. 245–268). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Lincoln, Y. S., Tierney, W. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262361
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), artykuł 9. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.3.3090
Masso, A., Gerassimenko, J., Kasapoglu, T., Beilmann, M. (2025). Research ethics committees as knowledge gatekeepers: The impact of emerging technologies on social science research. Journal of Responsible Technology, 21, artykuł 100112. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2025.100112
Melrose, M. (2011). Regulating social research: Exploring the implications of extending ethical review procedures in social research. Sociological Research Online, 16(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2377
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. The University of Chicago Press.
Męcfal, S. (2020). Analiza praktyk anonimizacji danych w polskich jakościowych badaniach socjologicznych na tle literatury przedmiotu oraz zasad etyczno-prawnych. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 69(3), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.26485/PS/2020/69.3/3
Męcfal, S. (2025). Superwizja i interwizja jako drogi wsparcia badaczy i badaczek w procesie badawczym w warunkach zinstytucjonalizowanej etyki badań społecznych. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Sociologica, 93, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-600X.93.01
Męcfal, S., Surmiak, A. (2026). Between academic freedom and corporation. Apparent actions in Polish Academia. Academia, 43, 49–73. https://doi.org/10.26220/aca.5556
Miser, R. (2023). A case study on social science research ethics approval process. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 56(2), 759–811. https:// doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.1107014
Narodowe Centrum Nauki. (2016). Zalecenia Rady Narodowego Centrum Nauki dotyczące badań z udziałem ludzi. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/2016_zalecenia_Rady_NCN_dot_etyki_badan.pdf
Narodowe Centrum Nauki. (2019). [Pismo dyrektora NCN w sprawie zarządzania danymi naukowymi]. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/2019_04_03_pismo_dyrektora_NCN_zarzadzanie_danymi_naukowymi.pdf
Nicole-Berva, O., Ušča, A. (2026). Resisting epistemic injustice: The potential of vulnerability in research ethics. Qualitative Research, 26(3), 643–664. https:// doi.org/10.1177/14687941251390765
Schrag, Z. M. (2011). The case against ethics review in the social sciences. Research Ethics, 7(4), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/174701611100700402
Shore, C. (2024). The bureaucratization of ethical integrity. Research ethics committees and imaginaries of risk. Anthropology Today, 40(2), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12872
Shore, C., Wright, S. (1999). Audit culture and anthropology: Neoliberalism in British higher education. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(4), 557–575. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2661148
Shore, C., Wright, S. (2015). Governing by numbers: Audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology / Anthropologie sociale, 23(1), 22–28. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12098
Surmiak, A. (2022). Etyka naukowych badań społecznych. Pomiędzy kodyfikacją i instytucjonalizacją a praktyką badawczą. Diametros, 19(74), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1818
Surmiak, A. (2023). Czego uczy dyskusja wokół anglosaskich komisji etycznych? Analiza wybranych kwestii spornych. Diametros, 19(76), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1865
Ślęczek-Czakon, D. (2020). Rola komisji bioetycznej w ocenie rzetelności eksperymentów medycznych na ludziach. Rocznik Lubuski, 46(1), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.34768/rl.2020.v461.17
Ślęzak, I. (2023). Komisja etyczna jako strażnik, wróg, cenzor czy partner? Proces oceny etycznej badań społecznych z udziałem osób świadczących usługi seksualne. Diametros, 19(76), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1862
Tolich, M., Tumilty, E., Choe, L., Hohmann-Marriott, B., Fahey, N. (2020). Researcher emotional safety as ethics in practice: Why professional supervision should augment PhD candidates’ academic supervision. W: R. Iphofen (red.), Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity (s. 589–602). Springer International Publishing.
Van Brown, B. L. (2020). Disaster research “methics”: Ethical and methodological considerations of researching disaster-affected populations. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(8), 1050–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220938115
Woroniecka, G. (2014). Kodeks etyczny w socjologii – wybrane problemy. W: M. Fuszara, W. Pawlik (red.), Idee – Historia – Społeczeństwo (s. 240–254). Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.