JRSM > Volume 98, Number 11 > Pp. 496-502

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JRSM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shaw, S. Articles by Greenhalgh, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Series

Research governance: where did it come from, what does it mean?

Sara Shaw Petra M Boynton   Trisha Greenhalgh

Open Learning Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London, Holborn Union Building, Highgate Hill, London N19 5LW, UK

Correspondence to: Sara ShawE-mail: s.shaw{at}pcps.ucl.ac.uk

SUMMARY

For a variety of historical and social reasons, research has become increasingly formalized and regulated. This change has potential benefits (reduction in fraud and misconduct, protection of vulnerable groups, financial probity) but also disadvantages (increased paperwork, time delays, constraints on research freedom).

The terms ‘research’ and ‘governance’ mean different things in different contexts. Even with explicit guidance, ambiguities must be resolved by human judgement. Variation in the nature and outcome of approval decisions is therefore a fact of life.

The type of approval needed for a research study depends on the official remit of the approval body, the question to be addressed; the methods to be used; the context in which the work will take place; the level of analysis and interpretation; and the plans for how the findings will be presented and used.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related articles in JRSM:

From powerpoint to papyrus

Kamran Abbasi
JRSM 2005 98: 481. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. D. Hodges, A. Kuper, and S. Reeves Discourse analysis BMJ, August 7, 2008; 337(aug07_3): a879 - a879. [Full Text]

				P Thompson and E Carr Content analysis of general practitioner-requested lumbar spine X-ray reports Br. J. Radiol., November 1, 2007; 80(959): 866 - 871. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Kielmann, A. Tierney, R. Porteous, G. Huby, A. Sheikh, and H. Pinnock The Department of Health's research governance framework remains an impediment to multi-centre studies: findings from a national descriptive study J R Soc Med, May 1, 2007; 100(5): 234 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A.-S. Salman, T. M Brock, M. S Dennis, P. A G Sandercock, P. M White, and C. Warlow Research governance impediments to clinical trials: a retrospective survey J R Soc Med, February 1, 2007; 100(2): 101 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Slowther, P. Boynton, and S. Shaw Research governance: ethical issues J R Soc Med, February 1, 2006; 99(2): 65 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]