TY - JOUR AU - Balfour, Gillian AU - Martel, Joane PY - 2017/07/14 Y2 - 2024/03/29 TI - Critical Prison Research and University Research Ethics Boards: Homogenization of Inquiry and Policing of Carceral Knowledge JF - Oñati Socio-Legal Series JA - Oñati Socio-Legal Series VL - 8 IS - 2 SE - Thematic Articles DO - UR - https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/903 SP - 225-246 AB - <p>This article illustrates how authoritative regulatory practices that research ethics boards may deploy when assessing non-traditional social research may pave the way to a homogenization of inquiry and forms of policing of knowledge. The authors sought institutional ethics clearance from multiple research ethics boards in the case of a critically-oriented participatory action-based study with formerly incarcerated persons in Canada. Evidence is provided from two case studies. Two unexpected challenges were encountered from research ethics board members. The first challenge was related to the board&rsquo;s stereotypical bias about the violent potential of former prisoners (as co-researchers and participants). The second challenge was related to an overly cautious interpretation of federal ethical guidelines leading to the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from the project. Both challenges have in common that they point to research ethics boards&rsquo; possible role in the policing of knowledge which may jeopardize researchers&rsquo; ability to engage in critical scholarship. <br /><br /> El art&iacute;culo ilustra las pr&aacute;cticas regulatorias autoritarias que los comit&eacute;s de &eacute;tica en investigaci&oacute;n pueden adoptar, y c&oacute;mo &eacute;stas allanan el camino a la homogeneizaci&oacute;n de las indagaciones y a la vigilancia sobre la producci&oacute;n de conocimiento. Se exhiben pruebas de dos estudios de caso en los cuales los miembros del comit&eacute; se toparon con situaciones que no esperaban. La primera estaba relacionada con el sesgo t&iacute;pico de los comit&eacute;s sobre el potencial violento de antiguos reclusos, y la segunda, con una interpretaci&oacute;n excesivamente prudente de directrices &eacute;ticas federales, lo cual desemboc&oacute; en la exclusi&oacute;n de personas ind&iacute;genas del proyecto. Ambas situaciones se&ntilde;alan al posible rol de los comit&eacute;s de &eacute;tica como vigilantes de la producci&oacute;n de conocimiento, algo que podr&iacute;a poner en peligro la capacidad de los investigadores para realizar una labor acad&eacute;mica cr&iacute;tica.</p><p><strong>Available from: </strong><a href="https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-0931" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-0931</a></p> ER -