A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes used to determine the ethical merit of research. Citing criticism on the bureaucratic nature of ethics review processes, this literature provides a useful provocation for (re)considering how the ethics review might be enacted. Much of this criticism focuses on how ethics review boards deliberate, with particular attention given to the lack of transparency and opportunities for researcher recourse that characterise ethics review processes. Centered specifically on the conduct of ethics review boards convened within university settings, this paper draws on these inherent criticisms to consider the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative and deliberative practices. Outlining a set of principles against which ethics review boards might establish strategies for engaging with researchers and research communities, this paper draws attention to how Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility for the ethics review might be enacted in the day-to-day practice of the university human ethics review board. This paper develops these themes via a conceptual lens derived from Habermas’ (The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society, 1984) articulation of ‘communicative action’ and Fraser’s (Social Text, 25(26), 56–80, 1990) consideration of ‘strong publics’ to cast consideration of the role that human ethics review boards might play in supporting university research cultures. Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility provide useful conceptual prompts for considering how ethics review boards might undertake their work.

越来越多的批评伦理审查委员会的文献已经引起人们对用于确定研究伦理价值的过程的关注。该文献引用了对伦理审查过程官僚性质的批评，为（重新）考虑如何制定伦理审查提供了有益的启发。大多数批评都集中在道德审查委员会如何审议，特别注意缺乏透明度和研究人员追索机会，这是伦理审查过程的特点。本文以大学环境中召开的道德审查委员会的行为为中心，利用这些固有的批评来考虑道德审查委员会可能制定更多交流和审议实践的方式。本文概述了伦理审查委员会制定与研究人员和研究团体互动的策略的一套原则，并提请注意协商沟通、与研究人员的接触和责任分配因为道德审查可能会在大学人类道德审查委员会的日常实践中制定。本文通过源自哈贝马斯（交流行动理论。第 1 卷：理性和社会合理化，1984 年）的概念镜头发展这些主题，阐述了“交流行动”和弗雷泽（社会文本，25（26），56 –80, 1990) 考虑“强大的公众”来考虑人类伦理审查委员会在支持大学研究文化方面可能发挥的作用。协商沟通、与研究人员的接触和责任分配为考虑伦理审查委员会如何开展工作提供了有用的概念提示。