Gobierno institucional de la ética de la investigación: el problema de la autonomía revisitado desde las tensiones de un modelo de supervisión centralizado y multidisciplinar
Based on a study case drawn from meetings of a Research Ethics Committee - REC, in this thesis I analyze the dynamics of what is known as the institutional surveillance model of research ethics. In order to elucidate the institutional and interactional dimensions of the committee, I use the concept...
- Autores:
-
Betancourt Mosquera, Wilfredo
- Tipo de recurso:
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2014
- Institución:
- Universidad Nacional de Colombia
- Repositorio:
- Universidad Nacional de Colombia
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repositorio.unal.edu.co:unal/52796
- Acceso en línea:
- https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/52796
http://bdigital.unal.edu.co/47203/
- Palabra clave:
- 17 Ética (Filosofía, moral) / Ethics
3 Ciencias sociales / Social sciences
Comité(s) de Ética en Investigación - CEI
Etica de la investigación
Gobierno institucional de la ética de la investigación
Evaluación ética
Organizaciones de frontera
Investigación
Autonomía
Bioética
Research Ethics Committees - REC
Research ethics
Research ethics institutional governance
Ethical assessment
Research
Boundary organizations
Autonomy
Bioethics
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
Summary: | Based on a study case drawn from meetings of a Research Ethics Committee - REC, in this thesis I analyze the dynamics of what is known as the institutional surveillance model of research ethics. In order to elucidate the institutional and interactional dimensions of the committee, I use the concept of “boundary organizations.” This concept allows me to: first, discuss how the committee negotiates within what I describe as the institutional network of research ethics governance, a negotiation that results from tensions among actors located within the network. And second, to deeply analyze the difficulties generated by the conjunction of “communities of practice,” and the strategies used to solve those difficulties. In despite of having regulatory expectations, by enacting a discourse that preserved the confidence in researchers’ moral behavior, and by using internal procedures concentrating ethical assessment in the head of health experts trained in bioethics, I conclude that the Committee consolidated as a space in which researchers deepened their functional and institutional autonomy. |
---|