The Relationship between Qualitative Research and Research Ethics Boards

This paper discusses the relationship between the use of qualitative research and REBs (Research ethics boards) in protecting the rights and welfare of research participants. It explores how REBs set the programs that regulate qualitative research and how the two are connected.

Running head: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 1
Public Administration
Name
Institution

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 2
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
This paper discusses the relationship between the use of qualitative research and REBs
(Research ethics boards). The roots of qualitative research are human sciences. Qualitative
research is mainly exploratory research. It is used to collect as well as works with non-numerical
data. The interpretation of this non-numerical data helps in understanding the social life of
human being through the study of targeted places and populations whereas Research ethics board
is a group of individuals that assist in reviewing a study to ensure that the rights and welfare of
research participants are protected. Research ethics board has a program that is responsible for
the regulatory and ethical compliance of research that mainly involves human sciences. From the
definition of qualitative research and REBs, the two are connected in that REBs set the programs
that regulate qualitative research (Doria et al., 2018). The ethical, as well as regulatory
compliance set by REB, mainly deals with research that covers human subjects.
The TCPS provides a detailed expectation for research ethics board membership and
structure. TCPs require that the representative of REBs should combine professionals that have a
background in qualitative research (McCormack et.al, 2012). Therefore, the two relate in that
some of the REBs members are people with knowledge in qualitative research. This is because of
members of REBs that have qualitative backgrounds critical and essential when reviewing the
research outcome.
The research ethics outlined by the Research Ethics Boards contain principles and
guidelines which help in protecting qualitative researchers and their participants, assure trust,
minimize harm, ensure research integrity, and satisfy professional and organization demands.
This means that when the researchers want to change something in their research work, the
research ethics boards have to approve the changes made by the researchers by delegating to

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 3
them ethical authority. This is because any change made in the research is regarded as a change
in research design and therefore requires ethics approval. The relationship in this situation is that
the research ethics set by REBs bind qualitative researchers and their participants. This means
that Research ethics boards must first approve the study by ensuring that all conditions are met
before allowing it to begin.
Qualitative research is a concept of study that requires the involvement of human. This
human participation component must be treated with a lot of care. Research ethics board
professionals relate with the use of qualitative research in that it helps in determining the non-
involvement of humans (Lee, 2018). They also find out whether the proposed study has minimal
risk of harm to both the participants and the researchers. Research ethics boards require
qualitative researchers to identify the potential benefits and risks that are associated with the
research work.
The review process attached both the researcher and REBs. In that, the researchers are
often invited in a collegial way by the research ethics boards to have a dialogue on issues that
relate to the research study.
There are also power relationships that linked research ethics boards and the use of
qualitative research. The connection is that dissimilar operative understandings of power initiate
the tensions between REBs and participatory researchers. Research ethics boards professional
depend on a hierarchically structured concept of power. REBs have the assumption that the
researchers also have the same power over the participants (Human participants).

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 4
References
Doria, N., Condran, B., Boulos, L., Maillet, D. G. C., Dowling, L., & Levy, A. (2018).
Sharpening the focus: differentiating between focus groups for patient engagement vs.
qualitative research. Research involvement and engagement, 4(1), 19.
Lee, V. (2018). RESEARCH REFLECTIONS Beyond seeking informed consent: Upholding
ethical values within the research proposal. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal/Revue
canadienne de soins infirmiers en oncologie, 28(3), 222-224.
McCormack, D., Carr, T., McCloskey, R., Keeping-Burke, L., Furlong, K. E., & Doucet, S.
(2012). Getting through ethics: The fit between research ethics board assessments and
qualitative research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(5), 30-
36.