바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Space and Environment

ISSN : 1225-6706

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.30 No.2

Citation Share

The Limitations of Institutional Review Board and Research Ethics in Social Science Research: For the Relationships Between Researcher and Research Subject and the Protection of Research Subject

Space and Environment / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295
2020, v.30 no.2, pp.110-140
https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2020.30.2.110

(2020). The Limitations of Institutional Review Board and Research Ethics in Social Science Research: For the Relationships Between Researcher and Research Subject and the Protection of Research Subject. Space and Environment, 30(2), 110-140, https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2020.30.2.110

Abstract

This study aims to examine the limitations of the current IRB system by analyzing IRB regulations from the perspective of feminist research. Feminist research is useful for the analysis since it provides dynamic power relations between researcher and research subject, and also suggests that various methods should be sought instead of relying on IRB research ethics. The results of this study indicate that research ethics by IRB to protect research participants may not be true; research gatekeepers also try to protect research subject, but they also may harm the research subject; and the research subjects can be deceived by researcher who want to obtain more information from them. Based on feminist qualitative research, this paper points out the limitations of current research ethics by IRB and geography research communities. Finally, this paper suggests that research ethics for qualitative research should be developed more realistically.

keywords
여성주의 질적연구, 연구윤리, 기관생명윤리위원회(IRB), 위치성, 자문화기술지, feminist qualitative research, research ethics, Institutional Review Board(IRB), positionality, autoethnography, female marital immigrants

Reference

1.

국가생명윤리정책원. 2018. 『연구자를 위한 윤리지침』. 서울: 국가생명윤리정책원.

2.

기관생명윤리위원회 정보포털. www.irb.or.kr(검색일: 2020.4.20).

3.

김귀옥. 2013. ｢구술사와 치유: 트라우마 치유의 가능성을 모색하며｣, ≪통일인문학≫ 55권, 131-165.

4.

김보화·지승경. 2009. ｢연구자의 젠더 이분법이 연구자의 위치에 대한 질문으로 돌아오다:‘인터뷰를 할 수 없겠네요. 저는 남성이 아니어서요…’｣, ≪여성학논집≫ 26권 2호, 257-280. ≪생명윤리≫ 15권 2호, 15-35.

5.

김은애. 2014. ｢전부개정 된 생명윤리 및 안전에 관한 법률의 연구대상자 보호 측면에서의 의의와 한계｣. ≪생명윤리≫, 15권 2호, 15-35.

6.

김성경. 2016. ｢공감의 윤리, 그 (불)가능성-필드에서의 연구자의 마음｣, ≪북한학연구≫, 12권 1호, 107-146.

7.

김연주. 2011. ｢페미니스트 참여 관찰 연구에 대한 성찰: 윤리적 질문을 중심으로｣, ≪여성학논집≫ 28권 1호, 159-197.

8.

미국 구술사학회. n.d. www.oralhistory.org/(검색일: 2020.5.1).

9.

서덕희. 2012. ｢사회적 소수자 연구로서의 “초월”: 국제결혼이주여성과 그 자녀들을 “직면”해야 하는 한 연구자의 성찰일지｣, ≪교육인류학연구≫ 15권 1호, 93-120.

10.

서울대학교 연구윤리. n.d. www.snu.ac.kr/research/ethics(검색일: 2020.4.30).

11.

서이종. 2012. ｢사회과학 및 행동관찰 연구에 대한 변화와 과제｣, ≪인간대상연구 및 인체유래물연구 연구자 과정≫, IRB 아카데미, 17-36.

12.

윤택림. 2002. ｢질적 연구 방법과 젠더: 여성주의 문화기술지의 정립을 향하여｣, ≪한국여성학≫ 18권 2호, 201-229.

13.

윤택림. 2011. ｢구술사 인터뷰와 역사적 상흔: 진실 찾기와 치유의 가능성｣, ≪인문과학연구≫30권, 381-406.

14.

안지영. 2017. ｢다문화현장에서 이루어지는 질적 연구자와 연구참여자의 라포형성의 어려움｣, ≪열린유아교육연구≫, 22권 2호, 31-59.

15.

이나영. 2017. ｢페미니스트 질적 연구의 원리: 입장 인식론과 페미니스트 정치학을 중심으로｣, ≪미디어, 젠더& 문화≫ 32권 4호, 71-99.

16.

이현서. 2018. ｢질적 연구에 나타나는 연구자 감정 성찰｣, ≪문화와 사회≫ 26권 1호, 7-41.

17.

전경옥. 2004. ｢한나 아렌트와 페미니스트 정치사상｣, ≪아시아여성연구≫ 43권 2호, 74-103.

18.

조대훈. 2014. ｢다문화교육 연구자의 연구윤리: 질적연구의 윤리적 딜레마를 중심으로｣, ≪사회과교육≫ 53권 2호, 35-50쪽,

19.

차재권. 2009. ｢사회과학 연구윤리의 실천과 제도화｣, ≪한국시민윤리학회보≫ 22권 2호, 51-78.

20.

최종렬. 2013. ｢관광객, 이방인, 문화기술지지: 한 에스닉 관광 문화기술지에 대한 자아문화기술지｣, ≪문화와 사회≫ 14권, 51-96.

21.

하딩, 샌드라. 2005. 조주현 옮김. 『누구의 과학이며, 누구의 지식인가?』. 서울: 나남.

22.

한국구술사학회. 2016. 『구술사와 연구윤리: IRB와 질적 연구의 도전(2016년 한국구술사학회 하계 학술대회 발표집』.한국구술사학회.

23.

Adler, P. A., and P. Adler, 2002. “Do university lawyers and the police define research values?”Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers, pp.34-42.

24.

Buch, E.D., and Staller, K.M. 2013. “The Feminist Practice of Ethnography,” in Hesse-Biber, S.N(ed). Feminist Research Practice: A Primer, pp.107-144, Thousang Oaks, California: Sage.

25.

Caretta, M. A., and J. C. Jokinen. 2017. “Conflating privilege and vulnerability: A reflexive analysis of emotions and positionality in postgraduate fieldwork.” The Professional Geographer, 69(2), pp.275-283.

26.

Chang, H., F. Ngunjiri., and K. Hernandez. 2013. Collaborative Autoethnography, CA: Left Coast Press.

27.

Cook, I. 2005. “Positionality/Situated Knowledge,” in Atkinson. D. et al.(eds.) Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts, London: IB Tauris.

28.

Datta, A. 2019. “‘But this is not geography…! of ontological circumcisions and writing feminist geographies from India.” Gender, Place & Culture, 26(7-9), pp.1103-1110.

29.

Davis, K. 2008. “Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful”, Feminist Theory, 9(1), pp.67-85.

30.

Dingwall, R. 2008. “The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research,” 21st Century Society, 3(1), pp.1-12.

31.

England, K. V. 1994. “Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research.”The Professional Geographer, 46(1), pp.80-89.

32.

Faria, C., and S. Mollett. 2016. “Critical feminist reflexivity and the politics of whiteness in the ‘field’.” Gender, Place & Culture, 23(1), pp.79-93.

33.

Fisher, K. T. 2015. “Positionality, subjectivity, and race in transnational and transcultural geographical research.” Gender, Place & Culture, 22(4), pp.456-473.

34.

Gordon, D. F. 2005. “Getting Close by Staying Distant: Fieldwork with proselytizing groups,” in C. Pole(ed.). Ethics and Politics in Fieldwork, London: Sage, pp.326-345.

35.

Gorelick, S. 1991. “Contradictions of feminist methodology.” Gender & Society, 5(4), pp.459-477.

36.

Haraway, D. 1988. “Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.” Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp.575-599.

37.

Hesse-Biber, S.N., Leavy, P., and Yaiser, M.L., 2004. "Feminist Approaches to Research as a Process: Reconceptualizing Epistemology, Methodology, and Method." in Hesse-Biber, S. N., and M.L. Yaiser(eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Social Research, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-26.

38.

Hooks, B. 1984. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

39.

Katz, C. 1994. “Playing the field: Questions of fieldwork in geography.” The Professional Geographer, 46(1), pp.67-72.

40.

McDowell, L. 1997. “Women/gender/feminism: Doing feminist geography.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), pp.381-400.

41.

Monaghan, L. F., M. O’Dwyer., and J. Gabe. 2013. “Seeking university Research Ethics Committee approval: The emotional vicissitudes of a ‘rationalised’process.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(1), pp.65-80.

42.

Nast, H. 1994. “Women in the field: Critical feminist methodologies and theoretical perspectives.” The Professional Geographer, 46(1), pp.54-66.

43.

Park, C. J. 2016. ｢IRB와 구술사 연구윤리: 한민족다문화 협력적 구술생애사 연구 사례를 중심으로｣, ≪구술사연구≫, 7권 2호, 133-161쪽.

44.

Pitt, P. 2014. “‘The project cannot be approved in its current form’: Feminist visual research meets the human research ethics committee.” The Australian Educational Researcher, 41(3), pp.311-325.

45.

Rose, G. 1997. “Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics.” Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), pp.305-320.

46.

Sharp, J. 2005. “Geography and gender: Feminist methodologies in collaboration and in the field.” Progress in Human Geography, 29(3), pp.304-309.

47.

Sharp, J., and L. Dowler. 2011. “Framing the Field,” in V. J. Del Casino, Jr., M. E. Thomas, P. Cloke and R. Panelli(eds.) A Companion to Social Geography, pp.146-160.

48.

Stacey, J. 1988. “Can there be a feminist ethnography?” Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(1), pp.21-27.

49.

Wall, S. 2006. “An autoethnography on learning about authoethnography.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), pp.146-160.

50.

Winchester, H.P. 1996. “Ethical issues in interviewing as a research method in human geography.” The Australian Geographer, 27(1), pp.117-131.

Space and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy