研究倫理的形式：文件、會議、與研究倫理審查

Forms of Ethics Review: Document, Meeting, and IRB Review Process

放棄受教育進城打工的農民工並非「壞學生」，這個標籤既無助於了解他們的處境，也無法透過用資源使他們成為「好學生」而解決中輟的問題。農民工並非落後、無法學習、缺乏動力或不想學習，而是早看穿他們在教育結構化中的不利位置，「提早進城打工」成為替學習尋找替代方案的結果。這反而展現他們在對抗不利結構時的修復能力與能動性。在「移動學習」中，生活、勞動與學習的界線模糊，也無教與學的二分，農民工透過現場觀察、旁聽、模仿、默會、實作、競爭與合作以及經驗分享等方式來習得知識與技術。一方面藉著到城市「合法邊緣參與」該社會場域的知識與技能，拼貼組裝學習資源為己所用；另方面則透過移動所產生的城鄉結構裂隙，去挪移文化品味、社會經驗與象徵符碼成為回鄉後轉換主體性的資本，試圖以此向上流動與提升社會地位。然而，移動學習仍有侷限性，學習所需的資源、機會與每一步的銜接，皆非制度性過程，很大程度上要取決於等待、機遇巧合、主管的賞識和學習者自己的額外勞動（例如表現出忠誠、苦幹或勤奮等）。

Through looking at university research ethics review committee meetings and examining the documents that frame as well as are produced by the meetings, this article aims to understand how the research ethics review committee translates ethics principles into procedures and rules that can be executed. Most of the literature on research ethics review tends to focus on structural issues of the ethics review system, contending principles of research ethics in different academic fields, and critiques of institutional overreach. Relatively less attention has been paid to the review process and the way ethics regulations are interpreted and applied. This article draws on personal experience as a committee member to describe the actual process through which research ethics review committees arrive at decisions on research applications. Research ethics review committees encompass routine administrative work and research project reviews. The ethics officers, who affirm proper application of administrative laws, and the review committee members, who are trained in specialist areas, work together to implement the abstract concepts of research ethics and execute regulations and laws. While there are differences across committees, research ethics review committees share common configurations and methods of reaching decisions to ensure consistency within individual committees as well as across local committees. During the review process, committee members become temporary bureaucrats for the purposes of decision-making. They actively and constantly interpret research ethics review procedures, rules, categories, and terms while filling in forms and assessing research protocols. Moreover, decisions regarding research applications are made collectively so that they are, or appear to be, beyond individual judgements. Bringing the committee together to discuss research application documents, routine Institutional Review Board (IRB) meetings are where the principles of protecting human research subjects and advancing academic knowledge are actively negotiated. Committee members assess the risk involved in a research project by reading the researcher's application documents, deliberating on various scenarios to evaluate potential research-related harms, resolving disagreements, and reaching decisions as a group based on ethics principles as well as applicable rules. Therefore, IRB meetings are not only the mechanism that makes decisions on research proposals but also play a pivotal role in maintaining ethics guidelines and administrative laws, implementing and producing internal rules, establishing standard operational procedures (SOPs), and generating documents for the review system. The products of these meetings, that is, the meeting minutes, SOPs, and various documents, further frame how ethics reviews are conducted and the scope of the research ethics review. As the topics and methods of academic research are constantly evolving, the ethics review faces the possibility of research projects exceeding current rules, procedures, and categories. In order to accommodate more and more diverse research projects, meet review requirements, maintain consistency, and accomplish the goal of bureaucratic efficiency, review committees must consistently review and revise existing forms, procedures, and categories. Moreover, discussions and decisions made in meetings become precedents that are relied on to achieve consistent decisions. Through documents and meetings, ethics review committees align past precedents, current research, and future prospectuses, and articulate the diverse fields of international research ethics principles, state regulations, bureaucratic administration, and academic research.