Think of, and treat, consent as a powerful and complex verb, not a strictly defined and constrained noun
The notion of consent and the expectation researchers will seek the prior consent of participants has a long history in human research ethics.
It has been a feature of many of the most infamous ethical Breakers commerce stamps and scandals.
Consequently, it has become a baked in feature of most of the guidelines on human research ethics.
But is that a good thing?
The typical approach to consent in human research doesn’t really work for a number of circumstances, research designs or potential how to participant pools.
Long strict guidelines can compound the error and can risk alienating researchers.
A more nuanced approach that provides guidance on necessary features of consent material can be more helpful than template consent materials.
This is exactly the kind of approach that this called for by the National Statement in Australia
Gary Allen, Mark Israel, Colin Thomson We are pretty excited to be working with
Human research projects often raise complex Data Management issues and considerations that can be pertinent for consent, privacy, risk management and research ethics review.
Research data is also an important element of research integrity, in that it serves as a record of the way in which the research project was conducted and the results of the work.
The data of the project could be useful and valuable for researchers conducting wider work in the same area. There are strong ethical reasons for the data to be in a form useful for sharing and the consent obtained allow for that sharing.
The responsible approach to that data should be informed by a mixture of institutional policy, the law /regulation and methodological standards.
In this post, Nichola Burton, Program Manager (Institutional Underpinnings), ARDC reflects on the issues confronting Australia Human Research Ethic Committees and their host institution.
For anyone that has been paying even the slightest attention to scholarly publishing over