English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this article, we discuss the principal difficulties in gaining ethics approval for an ethnographic midwifery doctoral research project in a hospital setting in South Australia. The research focus is on the various personal, social, institutional and cultural influences on women making a choice about whether or not to use epidural analgesia in labour. The obstacles encountered in gaining human research ethics committee (HREC) approval are discussed within the wider context of the benefits of ethnography as a research methodology, as well as the potential consequences to ethnography when assessed by quantitative research standards. By sharing our experience, we add to the current literature debating the “ethics” of ethics committee review in qualitative research approval. Engaging with the academic debate surrounding “ethics creep” – the increasing jurisdiction of ethics committees over research design – we consider the possibility of moving beyond principle-based ethics towards an ethical theory that more fully addresses the complexities of ethnographic research.

Access or Egress? Questioning the “Ethics” of Ethics Committee Review for an Ethnographic Doctoral Research Study in a Childbirth Setting