Suchergebnisse

This article illustrates how medicalized epistemologies and methodologies significantly influence the institutional ethical review processes applied to sociolegal research in law schools. It argues this development has elevated particular renderings of mental distress and objectivity to universal definitions, potentially placing a straitjacket on methodological innovation. The authors use two case studies from their experiences as researchers in a UK Law School, alongside a small-scale survey of sociolegal researchers in other UK law schools, to illustrate the problems that can arise in securing ethical approval for sociolegal research, in particular with participatory research designs that mobilize ideas of mental distress and objectivity not premised on conventional medical understandings. The article develops key proposals that the authors feel merit further inquiry. First, there should be a comprehensive evaluation of how the jurisdiction of ethical review for sociolegal research is established. Second, sociolegal scholarship can contribute to debates concerning the discursive, material and procedural constitution of institutional ethics approval processes. Finally, we might rethink the nature of, and relationship between, university-based research ethics committees and National Health Service research ethics committees, by placing both within wider ecologies of capacities for ethical decision-making.

In July 2007, the UK Information Commissioner's Office commissioned a team of researchers, coordinated by Loughborough University, to conduct a study into Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs). This was with a view to developing PIA guidance for the UK. The project resulted in two key deliverables: a study of the use of PIAs in other jurisdictions, identifying lessons to be learnt for the UK; and a handbook that can be used to guide organisations through the PIA process, taking into account the provisions of the UK Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998. This paper draws on the original research undertaken as part of that assignment to provide an overview of the ICO-funded project and the extent to which PIAs can be used in the current UK context. Firstly, the authors consider the findings of the comparative study and how the UK experience can be informed by developments overseas. Secondly, the paper outlines the development of the handbook during the course of the project and the extent to which it has been influenced by the overseas experience and the current UK political context. Thirdly, aspects of the handbook itself are considered and explained. Particular attention is paid to: its format; its key features; and feedback received on an interim version from a focus group of experienced data protection and project management practitioners. Finally, the paper concludes by stating why the study and the handbook provide appropriate tools for guidance in the current UK context, and how they can be developed further.

In July 2007, the UK Information Commissioner's Office commissioned a team of researchers, coordinated by Loughborough University, to conduct a study into Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs). This was with a view to developing PIA guidance for the UK. The project resulted in two key deliverables: a study of the use of PIAs in other jurisdictions, identifying lessons to be learnt for the UK; and a handbook that can be used to guide organisations through the PIA process, taking into account the provisions of the UK Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998. This paper draws on the original research undertaken as part of that assignment to provide an overview of the ICO-funded project and the extent to which PIAs can be used in the current UK context. Firstly, the authors consider the findings of the comparative study and how the UK experience can be informed by developments overseas. Secondly, the paper outlines the development of the handbook during the course of the project and the extent to which it has been influenced by the overseas experience and the current UK political context. Thirdly, aspects of the handbook itself are considered and explained. Particular attention is paid to: its format; its key features; and feedback received on an interim version from a focus group of experienced data protection and project management practitioners. Finally, the paper concludes by stating why the study and the handbook provide appropriate tools for guidance in the current UK context, and how they can be developed further.