You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Response
Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley
  1. Mark Sheehan,
  2. Michael Dunn,
  3. Kate Sahan
  1. Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mark Sheehan, Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LG, UK; mark.sheehan{at}philosophy.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

In this response, we first tackle what we take to be the core disagreement between ourselves and Hammersley, namely the justification for our model of social research ethics governance. We then consider what follows from our defence of governance for ethics review and show how these claims attend to the specific concerns outlined by Hammersley.

  • research ethics
  • sociology
  • ethics committees/consultation
  • regulation

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104975

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • MS and MD contributed equally.

    • Contributors MS and MD drafted the initial version. KS led on revisions and finalising the manuscript.

    • Funding This research is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, grant BRC-1215-20008 to the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Oxford. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles