Recognition that scientific research often, and may be always, has an ethical dimension has come only recently. … The latest stage in the institutionalisation and bureaucratisation of the ethical dimension of research has been the establishment of committees charged, in varying degrees, with assessing the ethical implications of research proposals before they are implemented. (Barnes, 1996, pp. 178-179)

For many researchers and the community, even some members of research ethics review committees, the review process is a bit like a black box. Researchers submit an application and out the other side of the box (the review) comes a letter that simply says “please explain,” followed by a list of items. What happened within the box, particularly what happened during the committee meeting’s discussion, is frequently unknown. The letters are often decontextualise. The researcher must use this decontextualised information in the letter to try and figure out what the committee’s questions or concerns are all about. In their attempts to address the issues, they may not actually address them. In fact, they may raise new questions.

One of the purposes of this research is to take a look inside the ethics review black box. This is to try and better understand the review process and better understand why some kinds of research, especially that associated with particular research paradigms and potentially vulnerable populations, seems to present particular problems for ethics review committees, research gatekeepers, and the researchers involved.