Webs of discourse: Caging human subjects as research objects
| dc.contributor.advisor | Slaughter, Sheila | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Frank, Cynthia A. | |
| dc.creator | Frank, Cynthia A. | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-05-09T10:53:05Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-05-09T10:53:05Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2004 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290028 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The system of human subjects' protections has recently gone through many changes. Overtly, the structural and functional changes are justified by rhetorical claims of increasing protections for research subjects. Yet, change represents an opportunity for a restructuring of the system in ways not immediately obvious. So, despite rhetorical claims of increased protections for subjects, what problems are delineated and how is the system of human subjects' protections constituted? Examination of the structure and functioning of the system, utilizing a blend of social constructivism, science and technology theories, and power theories, as well as a multi-layered, multi-dimensional examination of the system of human subjects' protections points to multiple social actors with many different interests. Many of these actors claim to speak for the subjects; however the subjects themselves do not speak in venues where policy is decided. Many problematic aspects of the system of human subjects' protections are delineated; however, few of the problematic aspects were addressed by the recent structural and functional changes made to the system. Overall, the current structural and functional aspects of the system of human subjects' protections do not necessarily support rhetorical claims of increased protections for subjects. As the system came under pressure from public scrutiny, the adjustments which followed tended to benefit institutional interests rather than human subjects. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | The University of Arizona. | en_US |
| dc.rights | Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Education, Administration. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Sociology, Public and Social Welfare. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Education, Higher. | en_US |
| dc.title | Webs of discourse: Caging human subjects as research objects | en_US |
| dc.type | text | en_US |
| dc.type | Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) | en_US |
| thesis.degree.grantor | University of Arizona | en_US |
| thesis.degree.level | doctoral | en_US |
| dc.identifier.proquest | 3131598 | en_US |
| thesis.degree.discipline | Graduate College | en_US |
| thesis.degree.discipline | Higher Education | en_US |
| thesis.degree.name | Ph.D. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.bibrecord | .b46711107 | en_US |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-09-06T13:20:49Z | |
| html.description.abstract | The system of human subjects' protections has recently gone through many changes. Overtly, the structural and functional changes are justified by rhetorical claims of increasing protections for research subjects. Yet, change represents an opportunity for a restructuring of the system in ways not immediately obvious. So, despite rhetorical claims of increased protections for subjects, what problems are delineated and how is the system of human subjects' protections constituted? Examination of the structure and functioning of the system, utilizing a blend of social constructivism, science and technology theories, and power theories, as well as a multi-layered, multi-dimensional examination of the system of human subjects' protections points to multiple social actors with many different interests. Many of these actors claim to speak for the subjects; however the subjects themselves do not speak in venues where policy is decided. Many problematic aspects of the system of human subjects' protections are delineated; however, few of the problematic aspects were addressed by the recent structural and functional changes made to the system. Overall, the current structural and functional aspects of the system of human subjects' protections do not necessarily support rhetorical claims of increased protections for subjects. As the system came under pressure from public scrutiny, the adjustments which followed tended to benefit institutional interests rather than human subjects. |
