Navigating the process of ethical approval: A methodological note
Main Article Content
Abstract
Classic grounded theory (CGT) methodology is a general methodology whereby the researcher aims to develop an emergent conceptual theory from empirical data collected by the researcher during the research study. Gaining ethical approvalfrom relevant ethics committees to access such data is the starting point for processing a CGT study. The adoption of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UNESCO, 2005) is an indication of global consensus on the importance of research ethics. There is, however, a wide variation of health research systems across countries and disciplines (Hearnshaw 2004). Institutional Research Boards (IRB) or Research Ethics Committees (REC) have been established in many countries to regulate ethical research ensuring that researchers agree to, and adhere to, specific ethical and methodological conditions prior to ethical approval being granted. Interestingly, both the processes and outcomes through which the methodological aspects pertinent to CGT studies are agreed between the researcher and ethics committee remain largely ambiguous and vague. Therefore, meeting the requirements for ethical approval from ethics committees, while enlisting the CGT methodology as a chosen research approach, can be daunting for novice researchers embarking upon their first CGT study.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Beauchamp, T.L., Walters, Le. R., Kahn J.P., and Mastroianni, A.C. (2008). Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. Wadsworth: Thompson.
Belmont Report (1978). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Maryland: Office of Human Subjects Research (OHSR).
Breckenridge, J. and Jones, D. (2009). Demystifying Theoretical Sampling in Grounded Theory Research. The Grounded Theory Review, 8(2), 113-126.
Chiang, V.C., Keating, D., & Williams, A.K. (2001). Challenges of recruiting a vulnerable population in a grounded theory study. Nursing and Health Sciences , 3, 205-211.
Christiansen, O. (2008). The Rationale for the Use of Classic GT, The Grounded Theory Review , 7(2), 19-38.
Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, (1996). A Strategy for Equality: Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Dublin: Stationery Office. Dahan, R., Dick, R., Moll, S., Salwach, E., Sherman, D., Vengris,
J. and Selman, K. (2007). Photovoice Hamilton Manual and Resource Kit . Hamilton Community Foundation. Ontario. Accessible Online: http://www.photovoice.ca/manual.pdf accessed: 9/11/09.
Dalton, A.J. and McVilly, K.R. (2004). Ethics Guidelines for International, Multicenter Research Involving People with Intellectual Disabilities Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 1(2), 57 –70
Faden, R.R. and Beauchamp, T.L. (1986). A History and Theory of Informed Consent. USA: Oxford University Press. Flew, A. (1979). A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan.
Glaser, B. G. (2009). Jargonizing Using the Grounded Theory Vocabulary. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2001). The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and
discussions . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1964). Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative Method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems , 12, 436-445.
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hallberg, L.R.M. (2006). The ‘‘core category’’ of grounded theory: Making constant comparisons, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well - being , 1, 141-148.
Hearnshaw, H. (2004) Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. British Medical Journal, 328 (17), 140-141.
Holton, J. (2008). Grounded theory as a General Research Methodology, The Grounded Theory Review , 7(2), 67-93.
Maltby, J., Williams, G., McGarry, J. Day, L. (2010). Research Methods for Nursing and Healthcare, United Kingdom: Pearson.
Manson, N.C. and O’Neill, O. (2007). Rethinking informed consent in Bioethics, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
National Disability Authority (2005). Ethics in Disability Research . Dublin: National Disability Authority Stationary Press Office.
National Disability Authority (2004). Guidelines on Person Centred Planning . Dublin: National Disability Authority Stationary Press Office.
National Disability Authority (2009). Disability Research Series 13 Ethical Guidance for Research with People with Disabilities. Dublin: National Disability Authority Stationary Press Office.
National Intellectual Disability Database (2010). Annual Report of the National Intellectual Disability Database
Committee 2009 . Kelly, C.,. Craig, S., Kelly, F. Disability Database Unit, Health Research Board: Dublin.
Siminoff, L.A. (2003). Towards Improving the Infomred Consent
Process in Research with Humans. Irish Research Board Ethics and Human Research, 25(5), 11-19.
Spradley, J.P. (1986) Participant Observation. USA: Wadsworth.
The Irish Council for Bioethics (2004) Operational Procedures for Research Ethics Committees: The Irish Council for Bioethics: Dublin.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
United Nations. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2005) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Retrieved May 26, 2010 from http://www.unesco.org/shs/ethics