This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gotlib Conn, L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ethics policy as audit in Canadian clinical settings: exiling the ethnographic method

University of Toronto, Canada, Lesley.gotlibconn{at}uhn.on.ca

In the 1990s, institutional research ethics boards (REBs) impacted the relationship between researchers and their participants by formalizing the ethics requirements to conduct research involving human subjects. While exceptions are made in some ethics policies for research that crosses international borders — for example, where obtaining written consent is not culturally acceptable — there are no such exceptions for research that crosses interdisciplinary domains. Consequently, when conducting anthropological fieldwork in a Canadian clinical setting, the requirements of the standardized ethics policy proves to mesh poorly with the ethnographic and general anthropological approach to research, distorting the process and meaning of obtaining informant consent in the anthropological sense. This article documents one neophyte ethnographer's complicated journey into the land of the REB, raising some important questions about the audit-type nature of the ethics review process and the potential exile of ethnography that may result.

Key Words: audit • ethnographic method • informed consent • medical anthropology • research ethics

Qualitative Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, 499-514 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1468794108093897


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?