The epistemological bias of ethic review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article investigates the concerns of a university research ethics committee in rejecting an application to interview people diagnosed with a mental illness. The committee's concerns included the safety of participants and the author as the researcher, the author's lack of training and clinical expertise, her disclosure of a past diagnosis of mental illness, the need for provisions to handle any emergencies, and the need to screen potential participants to ensure they were well enough to give informed consent. These paternalistic and medically derived concerns reflect assumptions about mental illness that are challenged by first-person perspectives, social movements in mental health, and newly emerging work within postpsychiatry. The article proposes some ethical procedures for human research ethics committees to follow to counter the epistemological bias of the current ethics review framework, particularly as it serves to constrain qualitative inquiry and first-person perspectives in mental health research
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)895-913
Number of pages19
JournalQualitative Inquiry
Volume13
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007

Fingerprint

mental illness
research ethics
moral philosophy
trend
mental health
university research
human being
Social Movements
expertise
lack
interview

Cite this

@article{75421130654845bcbdebd0409e79b45f,
title = "The epistemological bias of ethic review",
abstract = "This article investigates the concerns of a university research ethics committee in rejecting an application to interview people diagnosed with a mental illness. The committee's concerns included the safety of participants and the author as the researcher, the author's lack of training and clinical expertise, her disclosure of a past diagnosis of mental illness, the need for provisions to handle any emergencies, and the need to screen potential participants to ensure they were well enough to give informed consent. These paternalistic and medically derived concerns reflect assumptions about mental illness that are challenged by first-person perspectives, social movements in mental health, and newly emerging work within postpsychiatry. The article proposes some ethical procedures for human research ethics committees to follow to counter the epistemological bias of the current ethics review framework, particularly as it serves to constrain qualitative inquiry and first-person perspectives in mental health research",
author = "Kate Holland",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1177/1077800407304469",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "895--913",
journal = "Qualitative Inquiry",
issn = "1077-8004",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "6",

}

The epistemological bias of ethic review. / Holland, Kate.

In: Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2007, p. 895-913.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The epistemological bias of ethic review

AU - Holland, Kate

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - This article investigates the concerns of a university research ethics committee in rejecting an application to interview people diagnosed with a mental illness. The committee's concerns included the safety of participants and the author as the researcher, the author's lack of training and clinical expertise, her disclosure of a past diagnosis of mental illness, the need for provisions to handle any emergencies, and the need to screen potential participants to ensure they were well enough to give informed consent. These paternalistic and medically derived concerns reflect assumptions about mental illness that are challenged by first-person perspectives, social movements in mental health, and newly emerging work within postpsychiatry. The article proposes some ethical procedures for human research ethics committees to follow to counter the epistemological bias of the current ethics review framework, particularly as it serves to constrain qualitative inquiry and first-person perspectives in mental health research

AB - This article investigates the concerns of a university research ethics committee in rejecting an application to interview people diagnosed with a mental illness. The committee's concerns included the safety of participants and the author as the researcher, the author's lack of training and clinical expertise, her disclosure of a past diagnosis of mental illness, the need for provisions to handle any emergencies, and the need to screen potential participants to ensure they were well enough to give informed consent. These paternalistic and medically derived concerns reflect assumptions about mental illness that are challenged by first-person perspectives, social movements in mental health, and newly emerging work within postpsychiatry. The article proposes some ethical procedures for human research ethics committees to follow to counter the epistemological bias of the current ethics review framework, particularly as it serves to constrain qualitative inquiry and first-person perspectives in mental health research

U2 - 10.1177/1077800407304469

DO - 10.1177/1077800407304469

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 895

EP - 913

JO - Qualitative Inquiry

JF - Qualitative Inquiry

SN - 1077-8004

IS - 6

ER -