“The Emily Carr REB has come to understand
research as professional practice that intends

to extend or build on existing knowledge...”

To this end, the Emily Carr REB has come to
understand research as professional practice
that intends to extend or build on existing
knowledge through a disciplined inquiry or
systematic investigation, and through the
dissemination of findings. Members of the
Emily Carr REB understand the significant
overlap between academic research and what
is alternatively referred to as creative practice
and artistic inquiry. Not all artworks involving
human subjects require REB approval. In
Article 2.6 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement:
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human
Subjects (TCPS2) a distinction between creative
practice and research is clearly articulated.

“Creative practice activities in and of themselves, do
not require REB review. However, research that
employs creative practice to obtain responses from
participants that will be analyzed to answer a
research question is subject to REB review.” [4]

The TCPSz2 application of this guideline
expands on the designation of creative
practice activities.

“Creative practice is a process through which an
artist makes or interprets a work or works of

arts. It may also include a study of the process of
how a work of art is generated. Creative practice
activities do not require REB review, but they
should be governed by ethical practices established
within the cultural sector.” [4]

While the creative practice leading to the
production of art works is significantly
different from other forms of academic
research, when it is undertaken under the
auspices of the university, artists, designers,
writers, and media makers are expected to
adhere to the three core principles of TCPS2.
Creative practitioners of art-based research,
like others working in the university, are

expected to uphold Respect for Persons,
Concern for Welfare, and Justice as guiding
principles in their work. Creative practitioners
are also bound by the ethical conventions

and expectations of their cultural sector. This
means that they are expected to conform to

the standards of their discipline, particularly
concerning how they achieve informed consent
and permission from their participants,
subjects, or collaborators.

This is an area of dynamic debate within
Emily Carr, as it is at other arts-based research
institutions and universities across the
country. The Emily Carr REB in tandem with
faculty and administration looks forward

to participating in discussions with our
counterparts in other universities and the
Tri-council. These discussions are particularly
useful to understand the implications of
working with review models and standards that
have developed in research settings that bear
little resemblance to environment of creative
inquiry that has developed here. To help enrich
the debate, and to maintain a vibrant research
culture across all disciplines at Emily Carr, it
is important for creative practitioners who
undertake work involving human subjects to
self-identify their research aspirations and

to interrogate the boundaries between their
creative practices and the knowledge practices
of other conventional modes of academic
pursuit. Recognizing that the imported REB
model is dependent upon a responsive and
dialogic approach, the Emily Carr REB has so
far been informed by the discussions amongst
peer creative practitioners and researchers
within the Emily Carr community. The Emily
Carr REB is enthusiastic about its role in
guiding and supporting this debate.

CITATIONS

[1] Address by Dr. David
Bogen to the all university
meeting on January 5,
2012 at Emily Carr.

[2] Emily Carr

Research Ethics Board,
recommendations for
amendment “Policy

5.1.2 Research Involving
Humans Procedure”,
pending publication, 2011

[3] Panel on Research
Ethics, “Highlights of
TCPS2”, PDF, http://
www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/
eng/policy-politique/
initiatives /tcps2-eptc2/
Default/ accessed January
16, 2012.

[4] The original 1998
edition of the TCPS listed
the following eight core
principles: “respect for
human dignity”; “respect
for free and informed
consent”; “respect for
vulnerable persons”;
“respect for privacy

and confidentiality”;
“respect for justice and
inclusiveness”; “balancing
harms and benefits”;
“minimizing harm”; and
“maximizing benefit”.

RESOURCES

Social Sciences and
Humanities Research
Ethics Special Working
Committee (SSHWC):A
Working Committee of
The Interagency Advisory
Panel on Research
Ethics (PRE), “Research
Involving Creative
Practices: A Chapter for
Inclusion in the TCPS,”
2008.

Canadian Institutes

of Health Research,
Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research
Council of Canada, Social
Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of
Canada. Tri-council Policy
Statement: Ethical Conduct
for Research Involving
Humans, December 2010.