Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36712287›Full record

ArticleSocial & cultural geography2023

Towards a culture of care for ethical review: connections and frictions in institutional and individual practices of social research ethics.

Gabrielle King

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social & cultural geography, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gabrielle KingUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As researchers, institution-wide regulatory and organisational cultures guide our work. Over the past two decades, University Research Ethics Committees have been formally established across social science disciplines. However, the functioning of these committees has not been without critique. It is often argued that established ethical procedures informed by the medical sciences do not fit well with the more iterative epistemologies and unpredictable practices of doing social fieldwork. In this paper, I contribute to these discussions by considering what a further framework, a 'culture of care', might offer to university research ethics. A culture of care has evolved in contexts like the National Health Service (NHS) and animal research, and makes central claims around support, openness, collaboration and relationships. Bringing this to research ethics, I explore experiences of care through moments of friction in doing fieldwork with people living with Motor Neurone Disease. Identifying gaps between the institutional, personal and relational, I tentatively suggest some key features that a culture of care for research ethics might seek to develop. These discussions are also timely. Wider conversations emerging around reimagining research cultures in higher education provide an opportune moment to consider what a reimagined research ethics might look like and offer too.

Indexed as

Careculture of careemotionfeminist ethics of caremotor neurone diseaseresearch ethics committees

Identifiers

PMID36712287
PMCPMC9872949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.