Critical Prison Research and University Research Ethics Boards
Homogenization of Inquiry and Policing of Carceral Knowledge
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-0931Palabras clave:
Canadá, investigación crítica, indígenas, cárcel, ética de la investigaciónResumen
El artículo ilustra las prácticas regulatorias autoritarias que los comités de ética en investigación pueden adoptar, y cómo éstas allanan el camino a la homogeneización de las indagaciones y a la vigilancia sobre la producción de conocimiento. Se exhiben pruebas de dos estudios de caso en los cuales los miembros del comité se toparon con situaciones que no esperaban. La primera estaba relacionada con el sesgo típico de los comités sobre el potencial violento de antiguos reclusos, y la segunda, con una interpretación excesivamente prudente de directrices éticas federales, lo cual desembocó en la exclusión de personas indígenas del proyecto. Ambas situaciones señalan al posible rol de los comités de ética como vigilantes de la producción de conocimiento, algo que podría poner en peligro la capacidad de los investigadores para realizar una labor académica crítica.
Descargas
Metrics
Estadísticas globales ℹ️
|
455
Visualizaciones
|
304
Descargas
|
|
759
Total
|
|
Citas
Bernhard, J.K., and Young, J.E.E., 2009. Gaining institutional permission: Researching precarious legal status in Canada. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 175-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9097-9
Bolam, S., Carr, S. and Gilbert, P. 2010. The partnership project: Learning from experts by experience in mental health services; the jersey partnership perspective. The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services [online] 6 (2), 54-67. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5042/ijlps.2010.0354 [Accessed 12 March 2018].
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2014. TCPS 2 - The latest edition of 'Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans' [online]. Available from: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/ [Accessed 12 March 2018].
Cannella, G.S., and Lincoln, Y.S., 2007. Predatory vs. Dialogic Ethics: Constructing an Illusion or Ethical Practice as the Core of Research Methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 13 (3), 315-335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406297648
Cooren, F., 2004. Textual Agency: How Texts Do Things in Organizational Settings. Organization, 11 (3), 373-393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404041998
Correctional Service Canada, 2017. The Federal Offender Population Profile 2015 [online]. Government of Canada. Available from: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/005007-3033-eng.shtml [Accessed 12 March 2018].
Cross, J.E., Pickering, K., and Hickey, M., 2015. Community-based Participatory Research, Ethics, and Institutional Review Boards: Untying a Gordian Knot. Critical Sociology [online] 41 (7-8), 1007-1026. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0896920513512696 [Accessed 21 May 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513512696
Cummins, H., 2006. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Ethics Board: Studying the Meaning of Farm Life for Farm Children. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4, 175-188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-006-9015-3
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y., and Tuhiwai Smith, L., eds., 2008. Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385686
Dickson, G., and Green, K.L., 2001. Participatory Action Research: Lessons Learned with Aboriginal Grandmothers. Health Care for Women International, 22 (5), 471-482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/073993301317094290
Egan, R., et al., 2016. Research Ethics Boards (REB) Members’ Preparation for, and Perceived Knowledge of Research Ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics [online], 14 (3), 191-197. Available from: https://www.tib.eu/en/search/id/springer%3Adoi~10.1007%252Fs10805-016-9256-8/Research-Ethics-Board-REB-Members-Preparation-for/ [Accessed 21 May 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9256-8
Guillemin, M., and Gillam, L., 2004. Ethics, Reflexivity, and ‘Ethically Important Moments’ in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2), 261-280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360
Guillemin, M., et al., 2012. Human Research Ethics Committees: Examining their Roles and Responsibilities. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics [online], 7 (3), 38-49. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.38 [Accessed 21 May 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.38
Haggerty, K., 2004. Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27 (4), 391-414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000049239.15922.a3
Halse, C., and Honey, A., 2007. Rethinking Ethics Review as Institutional Discourse. Qualitative Inquiry, 13 (3), 336-352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406297651
Hardy, C., 2004. Scaling Up and Bearing Down in Discourse Analysis; Questions Regarding Textual Agencies and their Context. Organization, 11 (3), 415-425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404042000
Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2017. Welcome to First Nation Profiles [online]. Available from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/index.aspx?lang=eng [Accessed 12 March 2018].
Janovicek, N., 2006. Oral History and Ethical Practice: Towards Effective Policies and Procedures. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4 (1-4), 157-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-006-9017-1
Kamberelis, G., and Dimitriadis, G., 2011. Focus groups. Contingent articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds., The Sage Handbook on Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 545-561.
Khanlou, N., and Peter, E., 2005. Participatory action based research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science & Medicine, 60 (10), 2333-2340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.10.004
Kovach, M., 2009. Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. University of Toronto Press.
Lincoln, Y.S., and Tierney, W.G., 2004. Qualitative Research and Institutional Review Boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2), 219-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262361
Louw, B., and Delport, R., 2006. Contextual Challenges in South Africa: The Role of a Research Ethics Committee. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4, 39-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-006-9020-6
McPhee, R.D., 2004. Text, Agency, and Organizations in the Light of Structuration Theory. Organization, 11 (3), 355-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404041997
Morgan, D.L., 1995. Why Things (Sometimes) Go Wrong in Focus Groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5 (4), 516-522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500411
Morgan, D.L., 1996. Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129
Morgan, D.L., 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287
Noorani, T., 2013. Service User Involvement, Authority and the ‘Expert-By-Experience’ in Mental Health. Journal of Political Power [online], 6 (1 – Special Issue on Authority), 49-68. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2013.774979 [Accessed 21 May 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2013.774979
Noorani, T., et al., 2017. Participatory Research and the Medicalization of Research Ethics Processes. Social & Legal Studies [online], 26 (3), 378-400. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0964663916677561 [Accessed 21 May 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663916677561
Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, 2015. Annual report 2014-2015 [online]. Ottawa, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Available from: http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/pdf/annrpt/annrpt20142015-eng.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2018].
Olshansky, E., et al., 2005. Participatory Action Research to Understand and Reduce Health Disparities. Nursing Outlook, 53 (3), 121-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2005.03.002
Palys, T., and Lowman, J., 2014. Protecting Research Confidentiality: What Happens When Law and Ethics Collide. Toronto, ON: Lorimer.
Palys, T., and MacAlister, D., 2016. Protecting Research Confidentiality Via the Wigmore Criteria: Some Implications of ‘Parent and Bruckert v The Queen and Luka Rocco Magnotta’. Canadian Journal of Law and Society [online], 31 (3), 473-493. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-law-and-society-la-revue-canadienne-droit-et-societe/article/protecting-research-confidentiality-via-the-wigmore-criteria-some-implications-of-parent-and-bruckert-v-the-queen-and-luka-rocco-magnotta/669339854A22568BA9D9513DDF85D108/core-reader [Accessed 13 March 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2016.27
Parent and Bruckert v The Queen and Luka Rocco Magnotta. Quebec Superior Court [2014] 22 3 [online]. Available from: https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Parent&BruckertVsQueenReMagnotta-2014-01-21.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2018].
Piché, J., 2012. Accessing the State of Imprisonment in Canada: Information Barriers and Negotiation Strategies. In: M. Larsen, K. Walby, eds. Brokering Access: Power, Politics and Freedom of Information Process in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, pp. 234-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774823241-014
Reitano, J., 2016. Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2014/2015 [online]. Available from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14318-eng.htm [Accessed 13 March 2018].
Statistics Canada, 2011. National Household Survey Profile [online]. Available from: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=01&Data=Count&SearchText=Canada&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1 [Accessed 12 March 2018].
Tapia, M., and Martínez, R., 2017. Ethics Review and Minority Ethnographer. Race and Justice [online], 7 (2), 127–143. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2153368717690202 [Accessed 21 May 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368717690202
Taylor, J.R., and Robichaud, D., 2004. Finding the organization in the communication: Discourse as action and sensemaking. Organization, 11 (3), 395-413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404041999
Tilley, S.A., 2008. A Troubled Dance: Doing the Work of Research Ethics Review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6 (2), 91-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9058-8
Tilley, S.A., 2016. Doing Respectful Research: Power, Privilege, and Passion. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
Tilley, S.A., and Gormley, L., 2007. Canadian University Ethics Review. Cultural Complications Translating Principles into Practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 13 (3), 368-387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406297654
Vacheret, M., and Lemire, G., 2007. Anatomie de la Prison Contemporaine. Presses de l’Université de Montréal, collection Paramètres. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9782760632776
van den Hoonaard, W.C., 2001. Is Research-Ethics Review a Moral Panic? The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38 (1), 19-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2001.tb00601.x
van den Hoonaard, W.C., 2006. The Ethics Trapeze. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4, 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-006-9026-0
van den Hoonaard, W.C., 2011. The Seduction of Ethics. Transforming the Social Sciences. Toronto, ON: UTP. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442694521
Walby, K., and Larsen, M., 2011. Getting at the Live Archive: On Access to Information Research in Canada. Canadian Journal of Law and Society [online], 26 (3), 623-633. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3138/cjls.26.3.623 [Accessed 21 May 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cjls.26.3.623
Wexler, L.M., 2006. Inupiat Youth Suicide and Culture Loss: Changing Community Conversations for Prevention. Social Science & Medicine, 63 (11), 2938-2948. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.07.022
Wilson, S., 2008. Research is Ceremony. Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2018 Gillian Balfour, Joane Martel
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
