View in EDS

Bureaucratizing Ethics: An Autoethnographic Critique of Research Ethics Boards in Academia

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Bureaucratizing Ethics: An Autoethnographic Critique of Research Ethics Boards in Academia
Language: English
Authors: Jeffrey Overall (ORCID 0000-0001-8777-2975)
Source: Journal of Academic Ethics. 2025 23(4):2177-2197.
Availability: BioMed Central, Ltd. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://www.springer.com/gp/biomedical-sciences
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Ethics, Research Committees, Governing Boards, Autobiographies, Ethnography, Educational Research, Universities, Psychological Patterns, Barriers, Inquiry, Governance
DOI: 10.1007/s10805-025-09647-7
ISSN: 1570-1727
1572-8544
Abstract: Universities have long served as centers for scientific inquiry, yet they are increasingly burdened by bureaucratic oversight mechanisms that, rather than facilitating research, often obstruct it. One of the most contentious manifestations of this trend is the expansion of research ethics boards (REBs). Originally designed to protect research participants, these boards have evolved into rigid bureaucratic structures that impose excessive procedural burdens on researchers. This study employs an autoethnographic methodology to critically examine the role of REBs in academic institutions and their broader impact on scholarly inquiry. Three categories emerged from the analysis: (1) strong emotions, (2) rigidity, and; (3) barriers to scientific inquiry. This study makes three primary contributions to knowledge. First, it builds on the established autoethnographic critique of REBs, providing a unique, researcher-centered perspective on ethics governance. Second, it highlights the emotional and psychological toll of the REB process, revealing how frustration and apathy deter research engagement. Third, it underscores the urgent need for reform, advocating for a more proportionate, flexible, and researcher-friendly ethics review process to ensure that ethical oversight remains a facilitator, rather than an inhibitor, of scientific progress.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1485305
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1485305
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Bureaucratizing Ethics: An Autoethnographic Critique of Research Ethics Boards in Academia
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jeffrey+Overall%22">Jeffrey Overall</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8777-2975">0000-0001-8777-2975</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Academic+Ethics%22"><i>Journal of Academic Ethics</i></searchLink>. 2025 23(4):2177-2197.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: BioMed Central, Ltd. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://www.springer.com/gp/biomedical-sciences
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Committees%22">Research Committees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Governing+Boards%22">Governing Boards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autobiographies%22">Autobiographies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnography%22">Ethnography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inquiry%22">Inquiry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Governance%22">Governance</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10805-025-09647-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1570-1727<br />1572-8544
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Universities have long served as centers for scientific inquiry, yet they are increasingly burdened by bureaucratic oversight mechanisms that, rather than facilitating research, often obstruct it. One of the most contentious manifestations of this trend is the expansion of research ethics boards (REBs). Originally designed to protect research participants, these boards have evolved into rigid bureaucratic structures that impose excessive procedural burdens on researchers. This study employs an autoethnographic methodology to critically examine the role of REBs in academic institutions and their broader impact on scholarly inquiry. Three categories emerged from the analysis: (1) strong emotions, (2) rigidity, and; (3) barriers to scientific inquiry. This study makes three primary contributions to knowledge. First, it builds on the established autoethnographic critique of REBs, providing a unique, researcher-centered perspective on ethics governance. Second, it highlights the emotional and psychological toll of the REB process, revealing how frustration and apathy deter research engagement. Third, it underscores the urgent need for reform, advocating for a more proportionate, flexible, and researcher-friendly ethics review process to ensure that ethical oversight remains a facilitator, rather than an inhibitor, of scientific progress.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1485305
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1485305
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10805-025-09647-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 2177
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Committees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Governing Boards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autobiographies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inquiry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Governance
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Bureaucratizing Ethics: An Autoethnographic Critique of Research Ethics Boards in Academia
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jeffrey Overall
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1570-1727
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1572-8544
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 23
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Academic Ethics
              Type: main
ResultId 1