[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-594538-105":59,"doc-detail-594538-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-ethics-and-politics-of-ethics-approval","The ethics and politics of ethics approval","","Examines how Human Research Ethics Committees’ regulatory scope can create ethical and political tensions in non-medical research, using an Australian case study. It describes an ethics-approved university project on workplace bullying perceptions that was later suspended, and analyzes the procedural issues this suspension raises. The discussion situates the case within critiques from humanities and social sciences about disciplinary partiality, management influence, and institutional bullying.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-ethics-and-politics-of-ethics-approval/594538/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-ethics-and-politics-of-ethics-approval/594538.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aldword","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-20","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":81},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What question does the article address about ethics approval processes?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It examines how weaknesses in ethics approval processes relate to increasing managerial interference, and contrasts unresolved problems with ongoing managerial continuation.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What happened to the workplace bullying research project in the case study?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The project investigating perceptions of workplace bullying was approved and later suspended by the Human Research Ethics committee, after achieving a response rate of 17 percent in five working days.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why is disciplinary partiality and management influence central to the article?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The article analyzes doubts from humanities and social sciences regarding ethical committee partiality, the extent to which management can commandeer processes, and what this experience suggests about institutional bullying.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},594538,1792208980,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":81,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},2336478940917,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nThe ethics and politics of ethics approval  \nTim Battin & Dan Riley  \nUniversity of New England  \nAlan Avery  \nUniversity of Newcastle and Hunter New England Local Health District  \nThe regulatory scope of Human Research Ethics Committees can be problematic for a variety of reasons. Some scholars have argued the ethics approval process, for example, is antithetical to certain disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, while others are willing to give it qualified support. This article uses a case study to cast the debate about how to address the weaknesses in ethics approval processes into the context of an ever-increasing level of managerialist interference in the work carried out by researchers. The problems attached to the former are unlikely to be resolved, while the latter is allowed to continue.  \nIntroduction  \nSince the late 1990s, the projects of academics working in non-medical research have increasingly come under the regulation of Human Research Ethics Committees. This process has not developed without criticism. Some critics have focused on how the process can be improved (Cordner & Thompson, 2007; Dodds, 2002; McNeill, 2002; Langlois, 2011), while others (and some of the same) have questioned whether the process is fundamentally in conflict with research in the humanities and social sciences (Parker et al., 2003; Cribb, 2004; Bamber & Sappey, 2007; Langlois, 2011) .  \nPrior to the establishment of ethics approval processes, and independently of them, another literature dealing with workplace bullying in higher education and the potential prevention of such behaviour, has grown considerably (Lewis, 1999; Thornton, 2004;  \nCroucher, 2007; Fogg, 2008; Keashly & Neuman, 2010; Raskauskas, 2006) . This article is concerned with a case study that points to a connection between, on the one hand, an attempt to gather data relating to perceptions 4 The ethics and politics of ethics approval  \nof bullying in an Australian university, and, on the other, the procedures and processes followed by a Human Research Ethics committee (hereafter referred to as the ethics committee) in, first, approving a research project investigating perceptions of workplace bullying, and then subsequently suspending its approval of the same project.  \nThe original research project of the authors and one other researcher was an investigation entitled ‘Perceptions of Bullying in the Workplace’using a survey instrument at the University of New England (UNE) . Subjected to scrutiny by the UNE ethics committee, approved in March 2011 and begun on 1April 2011,the project gained part of its impetus from a survey implemented by Voice Project Pty Ltd at UNE in mid 2010. Although general in its aims, the earlier survey revealed that many employees had serious concerns about the nature and extent of workplace bullying. For this particular reason, but more fundamentally because of longer standing concerns with the same problems, the research team developed a more extensive survey instrument. A principal aim of the investigation was to determine whether there were dif  \nvol. 56, no. 1, 2014  \nA U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nferent or conflicting perceptions of workplace bullying between various sections or categories of employees – non-managers and managers, academic and professional/ general staff, male and female, for example. The aim was (and is) seen as valuable because any demonstration of significant differences in perceptions correlating with a category of staff would hold some important implications for the literature dealing with workplace bullying. Throughout the preparatory stages, the project received the support of UNE’s Vice-Chancellor.  \nThis background is necessary to give an outline of the original project, but the present article does not substantively deal with that project. This article is entirely about the procedural issues raised by the fact t","cbCaisTNWYshG3bw","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisTNWYshG3bw","pdf",166604,"English","# Introduction\n# Case study background\n# Procedural issues and ethics-politics analysis","[{\"question\":\"What question does the article address about ethics approval processes?\",\"answer\":\"It examines how weaknesses in ethics approval processes relate to increasing managerial interference, and contrasts unresolved problems with ongoing managerial continuation.\"},{\"question\":\"What happened to the workplace bullying research project in the case study?\",\"answer\":\"The project investigating perceptions of workplace bullying was approved and later suspended by the Human Research Ethics committee, after achieving a response rate of 17 percent in five working days.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is disciplinary partiality and management influence central to the article?\",\"answer\":\"The article analyzes doubts from humanities and social sciences regarding ethical committee partiality, the extent to which management can commandeer processes, and what this experience suggests about institutional bullying.\"}]","The ethics and politics of ethics approval | PDF",1792079348,23]