This is a response commentary from James J. Clark and Robert Walker to critical commentaries of Research Ethics in Victimization Studies: Widening the Lens by Clark and Walker.

This paper responds to the commentaries offered by Mulla and Hlavka, Conte, Cerulli, Cromer and Newman.  We reflect on their differing points of view, attempt clarifications, and then restate our central concern in regard to research ethics in studies of violence against women.  We think that IRB-oriented approaches suffer from too much rule adherence, too much focus on doung thingd the right way and too little attention to the larger ethical question of to how figure out the right things to do.  We continue to raise specific subjects of any particular study.  Thus, we see not just a matter of poor design, mishandling of analyses, or even of clumsy inferences fromthe data in some research; these errors are correctible by better training and review.  But these errors also have the potential for misleading the public and policy makers and thus suggest ethical dimensions to clumsy work.  We conclude by proposing use of wide reflective equilibrium as a way of entering into deeper dialogue about the complex ethical issues surrounding this field of research.  Hopefully, we can move beyond mere rule compliance to seriously considering the end affects of our science.