(EP URC RECO RMOO RETR RCRRICREE)

its 1998 predecessor, the TCPS2 attempts to
emphasize the importance of flexibility and
on-going review in a newly consolidated set

of core principles and in its insistence on

the “proportionate approach to research ethics
review.”[3] By consolidating the eight core
principles of TCPS1 into three comprehensive
statements—namely, the respect for persons,

a concern for welfare, and the principle of
justice—TCP Sz clearly outlines approaches

to the ethical treatment of participants during
research that are dynamic and adaptable.[4]
The revised guidelines are less dependent on
the categories and classifications that have
been the used to guide research practices and
terminology in the past. “Respect for vulnerable
persons,” for instance is no longer a unique
principal but is now expected to be produced
as a result of all three core principles. In other
words, the TCPS2 appears to recognize the
fluidity of power relations and the fact that all
persons hold vulnerabilities; it suggests that
concern for the welfare of others requires that
researchers carefully assess the unique needs of
participants within the context of their research
goals and conditions. The inclusion of people
in the research enterprise, regardless of their
social vulnerabilities or institutional status—in
such a way demonstrating the researchers’
recognition that research and knowledge can
flow across formal academic boundaries ,—
would, in the spirit of TCPS2, be taken as a
matter of social justice.

Similarly, the TCPS2 emphasizes a “propor-
tionate approach to REB review.” Proportionate
review suggests that REBs need to be
responsive to the conditions in which they
operate, as well as responsive to the balance

of harm and benefit proposed in the research
under review. A proportionate approach means
that the REB will provide more scrutiny to
projects that propose a greater level of potential
risk than those which present no greater than

minimal risk to their participants. Both the
consolidated principles and the proportionate
approach require that the REB processes have
on-going discussions with researchers and
those who teach research methodologies. That
communication needs to reach beyond regular
reports and formal reviews.

In keeping with this spirit of dialogue, the Emily
Carr REB has been working with the different
faculties and faculty members to help articulate
the unique requirements of creative practice
research involving the participation of others.
This involves an on-going consideration of

the environment of creative research and key
questions about ethics in participant research.
We are invited to think about and debate how the
Emily Carr REB process might be integrated into
media practices like film, video, photography—
areas of research and production with well-
developed professional standards and practices
of consent and permission, that may or may not
coincide with other academic standards.

Industry standards and professional practice
conventions exist to guide and sometimes
govern how consent is negotiated in disciplines
like filmmaking, journalism, photography,
community art, and others. Emily Carr, like most
art and design universities, offers professional
practice courses and public projects courses
that teach undergraduate students to formulate
release documents that reflect various levels

of involvement with participants. During the
development of the Emily Carr REB, creative
producers amongst the faculty have actively
questioned the implications of integrating

REB scrutiny into these varied practices. The
debates swirl around central questions of
concern in research and creative projects: Do all
creative projects that involve people need to be
reviewed by Emily Carr REB? Are art projects
research projects or not? Do all members of

the community participate in research just by
definition of there involvement in the university?