Doing accountability: a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters.

@article{OReilly2009DoingAA,
  title={Doing accountability: a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters.},
  author={M. O'Reilly and M. Dixon-Woods and E. Angell and R. Ashcroft and A. Bryman},
  journal={Sociology of health \& illness},
  year={2009},
  volume={31 2},
  pages={
          246-61
        }
}
Research ethics committees (RECs) are charged with adjudicating the ethical status of research projects, and determining the conditions necessary for such projects to proceed. Both because of their position in the research process and because of the controversial nature of ethical judgements, RECs' views and decisions need to be accountable. In this paper we use techniques of discourse analysis to show how REC decision letters 'do' accountability. Using a sample of 260 letters from three… Expand

Topics from this paper

Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters.
Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local shaping of ethical review practices.
'Text-work' in Research Ethics Review: The significance of documents in and beyond committee meetings
  • J. Morton
  • Sociology, Medicine
  • Accountability in research
  • 2018
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 43 REFERENCES
An exercise in fatuity: research governance and the emasculation of HSR
  • R. Dingwall
  • Political Science, Medicine
  • Journal of health services research & policy
  • 2006
Regulation and the social licence for medical research
A sociological account of the growth of principlism.
  • J. Evans
  • Medicine, Sociology
  • The Hastings Center report
  • 2000
U. S. Health Researchers Review Their Ethics Review Boards: A Qualitative Study
  • S. Burris, K. Moss
  • Medicine
  • Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
  • 2006
Making things auditable
...
1
2
3
4
5
...