PDF (PhD Thesis) - UWE Research Repository - University of the ...

I began the process of completing the ethics form in December 2003 and
was finally granted ethical approval in September 2004. As a consequence
of the forms changing and the new research governance framework, a
lengthy and complicated application ensued. The completed form was 57
pages long and exemplified the weight of bureaucracy in the NHS that is
now confronting all researchers and which has been an aspect of clinical
practice for some time. I likened the process of seeking approval to that of
chewing gum which is stuck to your shoe! The more you try to take it off
the more it spreads everywhere!
I attended the ethics committee meeting in April 2004; attendance was
optional, however, it was suggested being available to answer queries
could speed up the process of approval. This proved not to be the case.
The meeting started at 12.30 and could last until 17.00. This was the first
meeting using the new COREC (Central Office for Research Ethics
Committee) form. No time slots had been allocated to the studies being
reviewed and it was possible that the committee would not call the
researcher at all. This could have meant waiting for the whole afternoon
not knowing if the committee had any issues with the study, only to find it
had been passed through without comment. What a symbolic show of the
committee‘s power; a form of symbolic, cultural and political capital.
A further problem centred on the information sheets (see appendix 1)
which at the time did not follow the committee‘s suggested guidelines. The
committee insisted I provide all the information sheets irrespective of the
emergent design of the inquiry. This meant predicting what I would use in
three years time and would not allow for learning from the earlier co-
inquiries; a main purpose of the design. This felt unethical to me.
I was heavily criticised for not giving a definition of reflection in the
information sheets, even though I had explained at the meeting that
understanding how practitioners saw reflection was one of the initial aims
of the inquiry. I argued providing a definition could interfere with the
47