Engaging the Humanities? Research Ethics in Canada

Abstract Three national Canadian granting agencies jointly developed and promulgated common set of guidelines for the treatment of human subjects in all research. These guidelines apply equally to humanists and social scientists as well as to clinical and biomedical researchers. This paper reports the 2001 response to national questionnaire to assess compliance of humanists to the new Canadian regulations, the impact of the regulations humanists, and recommendations to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The preliminary findings indicate gap in the knowledge of the humanities' research community with regard to the policies and procedures of the ethical review of research involving human participants and the understanding of the Research Ethics Boards impact the nature of research conducted by the humanities. Introduction In 1997, after four years of consultation with the Canadian academic community, Canada's three national research funding agencies-the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Medical Research Council, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)-issued the Tri-Council Policy Statement Ethics in Human Research (TCPS). The councils required that Canadian universities and health research institutions implement the policy framework by autumn 1999 and apply it to all research funded by these three groups. In 2002, the three councils established the Inter-Agency Panel Research Ethics (PRE) to continue monitoring this process. This paper reports the results of survey the impact of the TCPS humanities scholars in Canada and raises questions about research practices in the humanities and the role of Research Ethics Board (REBs) also known as Institutional Research Boards (IRBs). The importance of this study is its findings about the lack of awareness of the TCPS or resistance to the application of what is perceived as biomedical, clinical model to research in the humanities, fine arts, and social sciences. This resistance to the ethical review of their research activities amongst humanists is not unique to Canada and serves as an alert to IRBs and sponsors with regard to compliance issues. Standards for Ethical Conduct of Research In The Humanities To 1997 In 1977, the Canada Council, the precursor to SSHRC, issued report entitled Ethics: Report of the Consultative Group Ethics. The Consultative Group was to advise on the application of general ethics principles that should be observed by researchers in the humanities and social sciences, (p. iv) including the creation of a common ethical code which institutions will be asked to apply. It also was to address the composition of institutional committees and procedures to be used by these committees. The Consultative Group (1977, p. 1) struggled to strike a proper balance between respect for the rights and sensibilities of the individual or collectivity and society's need for advancement of knowledge. The Consultative Group was prescient in its recognition that the economist, linguist, demographer, political scientist, and criminologist-even the historian, biographer, and archaeologist ... gather data through direct and indirect contact with people and can have an impact their lives. It is not therefore the discipline that determines the presence or absence of ethical considerations, but whether or not the methodology employed results in the research having direct impact human beings. (p. 5) The Consultative Group reinforced the principle that humanists must be alerted to the possibilities of ethical conflict in their work. This report became the basis for SSHRC's policy ethics for research involving human participants until 1997. 1999 Tri-Council Policy Statement The TCPS Ethics for Research Involving Human Subjects had lengthy gestation period. The Medical Research Council, reflecting the internationalization of standards of biomedical and clinical research, recognized need to revise its research ethics policies and, since underlying ethical principles are common to all disciplines, convinced SSHRC and NSERC of the reasonableness of common policy. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.