Participatory Research and the Medicalization of Research Ethics Processes. (June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Noorani, Tehseen; Charlesworth, Andrew; Kite, Alison; McDermont, Morag
• Is Part Of: Social & legal studies. Volume 26:Number 3(2017)
• Page Start: 378
• Page End: 400
• Publication Date: 2017-06
• Subjects: Ethical approval -- materiality -- medicalization -- mental health -- participatory research -- REC -- triggers; Sociological jurisprudence -- Periodicals; 340.115
• DOI: 10.1177/0964663916677561
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0964-6639

Abstract

This article illustrates how medicalized epistemologies and methodologies significantly influence the institutional ethical review processes applied to sociolegal research in law schools. It argues this development has elevated particular renderings of mental distress and objectivity to universal definitions, potentially placing a straitjacket on methodological innovation. The authors use two case studies from their experiences as researchers in a UK Law School, alongside a small-scale survey of sociolegal researchers in other UK law schools, to illustrate the problems that can arise in securing ethical approval for sociolegal research, in particular with participatory research designs that mobilize ideas of mental distress and objectivity not premised on conventional medical understandings. The article develops key proposals that the authors feel merit further inquiry. First, there should be a comprehensive evaluation of how the jurisdiction of ethical review for sociolegal research is established. Second, sociolegal scholarship can contribute to debates concerning the discursive, material and procedural constitution of institutional ethics approval processes. Finally, we might rethink the nature of, and relationship between, university-based research ethics committees and National Health Service research ethics committees, by placing both within wider ecologies of capacities for ethical decision-making.