Analyzing the Relationship Between REBs and Qualitative Research

This report delves into the relationship between Research Ethics Boards (REBs) and the use of qualitative research, examining how REBs govern and influence ethical considerations in research. It highlights the importance of protecting participants and maintaining academic integrity. The report discusses the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) and its guidelines, noting that REBs may not always adhere strictly to these guidelines, leading to inconsistencies in ethical reviews. It emphasizes the need for REBs to have members with relevant expertise and the importance of deductive disclosure for protecting confidential information. The report also points out the need for better communication between REBs and researchers to ensure ethical practices are followed. The references include studies on research ethics, REB information systems, and the ethical implications of using the internet and social media for research.

University
Subject: Public Administration
Name

2
Table of Contents
Relationship between research ethics boards (REBs) and the use of qualitative research 3
References 5

3
Relationship between research ethics boards (REBs) and the use of qualitative
research
This study shall help in connecting the concepts between use of qualitative research and its
overall governance by the REB. The factors which have affected taking up of various
considerations in order to ethics shall be mentioned in here.
Qualitative research has long known to be serving the purpose for protecting the participants by
maintaining principles of academic integrity, research ethics, and human dignity (Detlor &
Wilson, 2015). The Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) was made keeping in mind the ethical
considerations for conducting a research where humans are involved. The guiding principles
were developed by the three major funding agencies to direct and law the rules and
considerations for doing research involving humans as the research participants. Since a long
time since the laying of the principles, it has been noticed that REBs do not always abide by the
guidelines in a fixed manner (McCormack et al. 2012). The TCPS do not maintain any strict
guidelines and only try to ensure identical decisions across multiple REBs are not made. Many a
times, it is seen that REBs just carry on with independent reviews without abiding by rules laid
by n by previous REB reviews. Most of researchers consider ethical review as something they
have to surpass, rather than considering it as an easy process. The REB has specified that at least
two members should possess an understanding and knowledge to consider content area and
methodology and the risks and potential benefits related to the research. As a threat to
maintenance of ethics, the TCPS do not clearly specify about the parameters of the expertise or
the number of experts who are to aid REB and hence, the researchers fail to understand the
things they need to specifically abide by in order to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of
the research participants (Van den Hoonaard & Van den Hoonaard, 2016). In many cases it is

4
found that only one researcher has the expertise and can sort out ways which if followed can help
in maintaining the dignity of the participants. The one research researcher fails as a lone voice in
the groups, with the others not considering the factors for safeguarding the rights, and dignity of
participants. In this case, it should be suggested that all researchers should have same level of
knowledge. Deductive disclosure is a theory which explains how and why the confidential
information of research subjects should be kept safely by researcher and should be only used or
revealed by taking their consent (Bender, Cyr, Arbuckle & Ferris, 2017). Even if they give
consent, it is the responsibility of researcher to conceal the data if the revelation of them can
cause harm to research subject.
Most of the times Reb do not discuss properly with the researcher regarding the approval of the
ethical factors to be considered in the work and thus, without proper consultation, the researcher
fails to take up the necessary things. This puts threats to the dignity and image of the research
subjects in the society. Thus, REB needs to be stricter and communicative in order to discuss and
direct researchers towards taking up the appropriate manner and considerations for conducting
qualitative research with humans are samples.

5
References
Bender, J. L., Cyr, A. B., Arbuckle, L., & Ferris, L. E. (2017). Ethics and privacy implications of
using the internet and social media to recruit participants for health research: A privacy-
by-design framework for online recruitment. Journal of medical Internet research, 19(4),
1-2. Doi: 10.2196/jmir.7029
Detlor, B., & Wilson, M. J. (2015). The Satisfaction and Use of Research Ethics Board
Information Systems in Canada. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research
Ethics, 10(4), 395-403. Doi: 10.1177/1556264615597497
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. Doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.30
Van den Hoonaard, W. C., & Van den Hoonaard, D. K. (2016). Essentials of thinking ethically in
qualitative research. Routledge.