Abstract:Background: Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or their equivalent review applications for prospective research with human participants. Reviewers use universally agreed principlesi to make decisions about whether prospective health and social care research is ethical. Close attention to understanding how reviewers go about their decision-making work and consider principles in practice is limited. Objective: The study aimed to understand how reviewers made decisions in the contexts of meetings and to understand more about how reviewers approach their work. The purpose of this article is to draw on data and findings and to show how reflective equilibrium as a theoretical frame can (1) deepen understanding of ethics review and (2) permit a reflexive examination of the habitual processes of review. Design and participants: Methods captured the day-to-day work of the RECs. Seventeen applications were heard during eight observations. There were 12 formal interviews with reviewers (n = 12) and with researchers (n = 8) which are not reported on in this article. Ethical considerations: Organisational permission for the study was given by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) whose functions became part of the Health Research Authority (HRA) during the study. The study was given favourable opinion by the University of Salford's REC (Reference HSCR11/17). Findings: Data were analysed using constructed grounded theory resulting in eight themes which revealed attention to procedure and engagement with applications. Reflective equilibrium was used as a qualitative frame to interpret themes distilling them into three processes at work in review: emotion and intuition; imagination and creative thinking; and intuition and trust. Discussion: Reviewers went back and forth between universal principles and considered these in the contexts of each application using the above processes. Conclusions: Reflective equilibrium offers a coherent and grounded account of review work. Reflexivity in training for reviewers is essential for improving practices. The challenges reflexivity presents can be assisted by using reflective equilibrium as a tool to illuminate tacit review processes.

Rhetoric Re-View: The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing

Reviewers of “The Edinburgh Review” in the First Third of the 19th Century: Touches to a Collective Portrait

Twenty-fourth Annual Margaret Mann Phillips Lecture: Erasmus’ Contribution to Rhetoric and Rhetoric in Erasmus’ Writing

Mapping the Contributions of the Review of Educational Research to Education, 1931–2020

Revisiting Reader Response Theory

Raising Questions with Lamiell about Future Research Directions of Critical Personalism: A Book Review Essay

Ethics review, reflective equilibrium and reflexivity

Linguistics and Classical Theories of Rhetoric: Connections and Continuity

Reflections on reviews

Awaiting the Owl of Minerva: Some thoughts on the present and future of moral education

A new history of classical rhetoric : an extensive revision and abridgment of the Art of persuasion in Greece, the Art of rhetoric in the Roman world, and Greek rhetoric under Christian emperors, with additional discussion of late Latin rhetoric

Rhetoric, Environmentalism, and Environmental Ethics

A Review of James Phelan Study: Retrospectives and Outlooks

Unjust Revisions: A Social Justice Framework for Technical Editing

"I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends ... ": An Editor'S Retrospective

Has Critique Run Out of Steam?—On Discourse Research as Critical Inquiry

Peer Review as an Evolving Response to Organizational Constraint: Evidence from Sociology Journals, 1952–2018

Polyvalent Practices and Heteropraxis as Heuristic: A Survey of Doctoral Examination Processes in Rhetoric and Composition

The Literary Criticism of John Middleton Murry

In Remembrance of Marcia Gentry: Major Themes Emerging in a Special Issue in Her Honor

Making a Difference: A Review and Auto-Ethnographic Account of Applying Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) in Policing