Renegade Researchers, Radical Religions, Recalcitrant Ethics Boards: Towards the McDonaldization of Social Research in North America
Since the rise of the new ethics culture in the USA and Canada, there has been a noticeable decline in field research on new, controversial religions and social movements. This study examines some of the new administrative obstacles to research, as experienced by twelve researchers in the course o...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Equinox
[2018]
|
| In: |
Fieldwork in religion
Year: 2017, Volume: 12, Issue: 2, Pages: 239-258 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
New religion
/ Fundamentalism
/ Field-research
/ Problem
/ Ethics committee
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AA Study of religion KBQ North America NCJ Ethics of science |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | Since the rise of the new ethics culture in the USA and Canada, there has been a noticeable decline in field research on new, controversial religions and social movements. This study examines some of the new administrative obstacles to research, as experienced by twelve researchers in the course of negotiations with their ethics boards (REBs in Canada, IRBs in the U.S.) for ethics approval regarding projects involving human subjects. The twelve informants' critiques of their ethics committees, conveyed in interviews, fall into eight categories: (1) unnecessary delays; (2) poor communication skills; (3) excessive concern for potential risk; (4) impeding spontaneity and flexibility in field research; (5) secrecy, immunity and lack of accountability; (6) the hierarchical relationship; (7) REBs exceeding their mandate; (8) disregard for the well-being of human subjects. On the basis of these interviews (and previous studies), the strategic responses of North American researchers to obstacles posed by ethics committees might be analyzed as corresponding to four types: capitulation, adjustment, resistance and reform. While capitulation appears to be a common response among graduate students, resistance appears to be widely practised among experienced researchers, who cooperate deceptively through benign fabrication or gamesmanship. This study explores the implications of the rise of this rapidly evolving moral bureaucracy, criticized by scholars for inhibiting field research through the delaying or halting of research projects, distorting methodologies, and discouraging initiative and originality. Finally, it is argued that the ethical concern for potential harm to human subjects must be balanced with the right of minority groups to be heard; to tell their side of the story. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1743-0623 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Fieldwork in religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1558/firn.35670 |