ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyISSN 2206-2483

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Aboriginal research and ethics: Could we be making it harder than it really is? Six things to focus your decision making1

 

What do we know?

I wish I could say there’s a simple formula that will reduce the anxiety of researchers (both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) when it comes to research that involves Aboriginal peoples. But I’ve found that when any of us put on a research hat (not just the lab coat), then this brings another set of expectations to the enterprise.

Karen Martin is an Associate Professor, School of Education and Professional Studies, since 2013 she has been the Deputy Chair: Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee, and is a Noonuccal woman from North Stradbroke Island (south east Queensland) with Bidjara ancestry (central Queensland).

How do I know this? To be honest, it comes more from my research experience and training more than my Aboriginal experience. What???? Yes…it’s true because research has a particular purpose with particular expectations, including ethics. That’s something often misunderstood when it comes to research with Aboriginal peoples. In the same way as not all researchers understand Aboriginal peoples, not all Aboriginal peoples understand research.

So, over time, I’ve been thinking just as much about the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ that is Aboriginal research and ethics to be offering the following points. I’ve had to limit myself, so here the six main things for making Aboriginal research ethics far less complicated.

What could we do (or not do)?

1) Don’t treat the research design as separate to the research ethics: Treat them equally and start the ethical considerations at the same time as the design and methodology. Waiting until the 11th hour is guaranteed to bring confusion; headaches; frustration that no amount of creative writing will alleviate this.

2) Don’t lower the bar on your research decisions: We’re in the best position of anyone to think within and outside the boxes of institutional requirements and legalities. We’re the academics and we’re the scholars. Use your knowledge of research and of the contexts and conditions of the research to resolve dilemmas, and at all costs, please don’t lower the bar. Where you have limited knowledge, do what all scholars should… (no, don’t just Google it)… gather information and get advice. Understanding (not just reading) the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies’ (AIATSIS) Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (GERAIS), 2012 and the NHMRC’s Values and Ethics, 2003 is a good start.

3) Don’t turn the bar into a benchmark: Given that research occurs in institutions that are the pinnacle of knowledge and education (you simply can’t go higher), then resting on your reputation or your identity could work counter to knowledge building. At worse, it could be stagnation (having become too comfortable) or it could be rigidity (having become fixed and unchanging). What’s the solution? Go for rigour and go for scholarship (see No. 2).

4) Don’t over-complicate the research and so, the ethics: This can happen when the AIATSIS or NHMRC Guidelines are treated as a checklist, especially in developing the research ethics application. The key word here is ‘guidelines’ and so they’re effective in guiding your decisions throughout the entire research (see No. 1). The old KISS adage (Keep It Simple Scholars) iskm_1512invaluable here.

5) Don’t lose sight of the research purpose: Here’s where we might have differing ideas. Mine (and this is reinforced by the AIATSIS and NHMRC Guidelines) is the main research beneficiaries (as different to research data users) have to be Aboriginal peoples and communities. So, give just as much attention to deciding how they will benefit. Show that you understand the contexts of the research and the conditions under which it will operate. Write this clearly in the ethics application.

6) Don’t be a ‘consumer’ of literature of Aboriginal research ethics: Be a scholar and always
be scholarly. Show that you have more than a surface level of information (i.e. only cite certain authors or documents). Demonstrate where and how such literature has indeed informed your thinking and decision making. Next, give due attention to how you write (and avoid perpetuating stereotypes or misinformation) as much as to how you research and understanding of the role of an ethical researcher and ethical research. Words can wound.

What does this all mean?
There are both macro levels of research and ethics as there are micro levels. Knowing this is a strong start to being able to attend to both from the outset and at all phases during the research. Here’s an image that will help understand this point. It’s about working the macro and the micro; breaking through the barriers and not lowering the bar.

* Are there any short cuts? NOOOO.

* Is there another way to do this? This is the second decade of the 21st Century (not the 15th Century, 18th or 20th Century).

* What do I do next? Step back; think about the macro levels and the micro levels of the research; begin your research ethics at the same time as the research design and expect to learn deeply.

* Whatever you do… don’t be a ‘consumer’. You’re a scholar and your core business is knowledge acquisition; knowledge transfer and its transformative power.

References

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (2012). Guidelines for ethical research in Indigenous Studies. Retrieved from http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/docs/research-and-guides/ethics/GERAIS.pdf

National Health & Medical Research Council. (2003). Values and ethics guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e52.

Assoc Prof Karen Martin
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University
View Karen’s EPS profile
karen.martin@griffith.edu.au

This blog may be cited as:
Martin, K (2015, 23 December) Aboriginal research and ethics: Could we be making it harder than it really is? Six things to focus your decision making. AHRECS Blog. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/aboriginal-research-and-ethics-could-we-be-making-it-harder-than-it-really-is-six-things-to-focus-your-decision-making

The seductive peril of precedent-based decision making1

Posted by Admin in Human Research Ethics on November 15, 2015 / Keywords: ,
 

Human research ethics committees face workloads that can very easily become crippling, consequently precedent-based decision making can appear to be a sensible survival strategy.

An HREC might decide to adopt such a strategy for several reasons:

• a desire to turnaround applications for research ethics review as quickly as possible;

• a commitment to being consistent and fair;

• to minimize the demands on committee members; and

• keep the discussion moving in meetings.

Typically such a survival strategy might relate to a component of a research design: ‘What do we normally do when researchers want to offer a prize-draw as an incentive to encourage participation?’. It might also be about the potential participant pool or context, ‘What did we do the last time an application related to research in China?’. Sometimes it can relate to the researchers, ‘Have we allowed counsellors to conduct research on their own clients before?’. Or, even more troublingly, it might pertain to an entire research discipline, methodology or research practice, ‘What did we do the last time we reviewed participatory action research?’.

There is a fair chance that the committee/other review body will not have specifically discussed adopting a precedent-based approach. It might be previously the Chair and/or ethics officer have previously been challenged by an applicant, ‘The last time you reviewed research like this you…’.

Making decisions by precedent has the allure of a legal approach which can seem to provide a decision authority, fairness and a degree of predictability that all might seem to make the work of the reviews more professional. It also looks deceptively like the philosophical approach of casuistry which uses reasoning by analogy to tackle complex ethical issues.

But, it is a seductive trap and Committee Chairs, members and ethics officers should be very wary.

Precedent-based thinking has a number of serious flaws:

a. Decisions should be based upon the specifics of individual projects – the research design, the question/objectives of the work, the potential participant pool, the context, the risks and benefits of the project, and the expertise of the researchers. In Australia, the National Statement is based on principles not rules and HRECs should not attempt to subvert the basis of the National Statement for their own convenience. Those countries that have adopted inflexible rules about research ethics have not had a happy experience and the United States is just taking the first steps away from this (Dingwall, 2015);

b. Applicants may well not have access to information about those precedents, so rather than the decision being seen as fair and consistent it might be seen as arbitrary and unfair;

c. Precedent-based decisions are likely to be conservative and risk averse; and

d. Such decision making encourages researchers to outsource their ethical responsibilities to the reviewers, ‘There is no way I can know all about research ethics review so I’ll just tell the reviewers what I want to do and they’ll tell me is it’s okay’. It also reinforces the message that the review is a one way communication, with edicts being issued, rather than an engaged and reflective discussion.

So what is the alternative?

Research ethics review bodies and research offices should work together to produce resource material for researchers and reviewers that identify ethical matters requiring attention, relate them to the principles and provisions of the National Statement (or relevant national framework) and provide the basis for the constructive approach to addressing those challenges.

Research ethics review decisions should reference the resource material, the national framework/institutional policy, and invite researchers to share their reflections on the given matter and explain why the propose approach is better/more appropriate for the specifics of the situation.

If a project is novel and/or applicants produce an elegant solution to an ethical challenge they should be congratulated (not beaten over the head with a precedent) and perhaps the solution included in the resource material.

The best solution to crippling workload might be to work smarter, rather than inflexibly.

Reference
Dingwall, R (2015) Deregulating Social Science Research Ethics – Clipping the Wings of IRBs? Social Science Space, blog posted 5 November http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2015/11/deregulating-social-science-research-ethics-clipping-the-wings-of-irbs/

Contributor
Gary Allen is the author of the Griffith University Research Ethics Manual a resource manual for researchers and research ethics reviewers.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G (2015, 16 November) The seductive peril of precedent-based decision making. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/the-seductive-peril-of-precedent-based-decision-making

Navigating ‘Research Fatigue’0

 

In human research, some groups of people (grouped by identity, association, condition and/or location) may become over-represented as research subjects in a particular discipline, or in research generally. These people may develop a sense of ‘research fatigue’ (Clark, 2008) – in simple terms, they’ve been over-researched and now they’re just over it. It is likely that a sense of being mistreated by researchers, a lack of trust between participants and researchers/institutions, and/or a failure of research to return any kind of benefit to the participant community, may exacerbate research fatigue. Subsequently, they may be reluctant to participant in any further research (Clark, 2008).

People belonging to marginalised or vulnerable groups may be particularly susceptible to over-research and research fatigue. This is partly because such groups may be identified as having persistent problems social or medical researchers may be hoping to help, and perhaps also because people in these groups have disproportionately suffered from poor and unethical research practices. For example, in Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have frequently been the subjects of research conducted without permission, or without due consideration to appropriate and ethical processes (Knight, Comino, Harris, & Jackson-Pulver, 2009; Martin, 2003).

I conducted my PhD research with an over-researched community. The people of North Stradbroke Island/Minjerribah – particularly (but not exclusively) the Quandamooka and other Indigenous Peoples of the Island -are suffering from research and consultation fatigue, and many had complaints about the way they had been treated by earlier researchers, or the fact that the issues they prioritised were being ignored.

Several months after my field work concluded, a colleague of mine – Rachael Cole-Hawthorne, another PhD student – began her fieldwork on North Stradbroke Island/Minjerribah with the Quandamooka Peoples. She encountered an unanticipated ethical difficulty; participants in my research (or people who had heard about me and my research – it’s a small community and people talk!) sometimes mistook her for me. We were PhD students from the same institution, after all, and bore a passing resemblance to one another. The issue of mistaken identity was always laughed off, however it meant that the anonymity of some of my participants had been unintentionally compromised; if they hadn’t mistook Rachael for me, they may not have mentioned their participation in my project.

It also became clear to Rachael that the success of her research rested, to a degree, on the goodwill I had developed. If I had treated participants poorly, or if they found participation unpleasant or uncomfortable, she may have encountered difficulties in recruitment.

As a result of these experiences, Rachael and I are working together on the topic of ethical research with over-researched communities. Our (very) preliminary thoughts, based on a review of the literature and our research experiences to date, suggest a few key considerations for researchers. Firstly, one should not dismiss the possibility of engaging with an over-researched community on that basis alone, but there is a particular onus on the researcher to justify why this site/these people, including to the participants themselves. Obvious relevance and utility, and clear links to the ‘uniqueness’ of that community that makes them the best pool of participants may help overcome initial wariness (and weariness). There is, perhaps, extra impetus to demonstrate a genuine commitment to the over-researched group, and focus additional attention on the building and maintaining of relationships. For me, this included spending as much time as I could on the Island, for blocks of time, rather than making day trips or just talking to people on the phone. Finding ways to connect potential participants to the research topic, and finding ways to deliver meaningful and useful outcomes for them, is also of heightened concern in research fatigued communities. Exploring alternative epistemologies and methodologies may help, including those that allow participants to influence the research approach, analysis, and products. Not only may alternative approaches help create a less exploitative and more mutually beneficial research relationship, the sheer novelty of them may help overcome fatigue. And, as always, researchers should be prepared to hear ‘no’, to respect that answer, and should have a Plan B in case they just can’t overcome research fatigue.

Rachael and I are collaborating with some of our research participants, particularly amongst the Quandamooka community, in putting together an open access publication that will explore these issues. In that vein, we hope to present a few different perspectives on the topic of research fatigue, illuminate some of the issues for researchers to consider when seeking to engage with an over-researched group, and identify some principles and guidelines for ethical practice in this area that are grounded in the experiences of those who are subject to over-research. Stay tuned!

References

Clark, T. (2008). ‘We’re Over-Researched Here!’: Exploring Accounts of Research Fatigue within Qualitative Research Engagements. Sociology, 42(5), 953-970.

Knight, J. A., Comino, E. J., Harris, E., & Jackson-Pulver, L. (2009). Indigenous Research: A Commitment to Walking the Talk. The Gudaga Study – an Australian Case Study. Bioethical Inquiry, 6(4), 467-476. doi: 10.1007/s11673-009-9186-x

Martin, K. B. M. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(76), 203-214.

Dr Natalie Osborne,
School of Environment, Griffith University,
View Natalie’s ResearchGate profile,
n.osborne@griffith.edu.au

This blog may be cited as:
Osborne, N (2015, 2 November) Navigating ‘Research Fatigue’. AHRECS Blog. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/navigating-research-fatigue

Institutional approaches to research integrity: Tilting at blazing windmills?2

 

Not so many years ago in Australia if you entered a research office and asked what they were doing about research integrity, you would probably be pointed sagely toward a back corner and a dusty shelf. In that forgotten corner you would find the Joint NHMRC AVCC Statement (1997) and perhaps the policies on authorship, CoI and publication ethics. Rigid rules stored behind neglected glass to be broken and used only in the event of a juicy scandal. Especially if that scandal was bad enough to attract the bored attention of the media and so also that of a ministerial staffer waiting for the chance to impress her boss.

The arrival of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) brought with it the whiff of welcome change. Things were poised to get better. Even though half of the document was devoted to research misconduct and the linguistically oddly named ‘breaches of the Code” it was also replete with references to institutional responsibilities and even the previously unmentioned role of research culture.

But what happened instead was…

Large consultancy firms, form makers and HR specialists got involved. Any notion of resourcing researchers honestly discussing contributions to a piece of work and agreeing how to acknowledge contributions was replaced by a compulsory form, and internationally lauded IT systems, and by sanctions intended to slam any non-compliers into submission.

If “responsible conduct of research” means what it appears to mean and not its opposite (as those initial responses suggested), institutional approaches to research integrity must surely become about doing research well. Those of us who talk about research integrity would no longer be dismissed as someone riding in on a donkey, wooden sword in hand talking about our mission to civilize bureaucratic arrangements and give research integrity back to researchers.

The questionable Miguel de Cervantes allusion notwithstanding, there’s a serious point to be made for researchers, research managers and regulators. Investing in compliance systems, bureaucratic processes and law firms, is not a positive investment in the research culture of an institution. Instead, research integrity must be approached like any cultural change objective — it needs to practitioner focused, include practical and helpful resources and firmly reject the sanction/enforcement model.

Spending money on an off-the-shelf framework might appear to be a major demonstrable investment in responsible research at an institution, but it misses the fundamental flaw in Weberian Orthodoxy: more rules, tougher sanctions and better forms cannot possibly shift the culture of conduct of something as diverse and complex as academic research. Punishing the 99.99% of researchers to catch the 00.01% is not only unbalanced, unsustainable and toxic, there are good reasons to be confident that the malicious minority won’t be caught by a punitive framework. Instead, these very few miscreants will game and avoid the system, misrepresent, deceive and avoid, no doubt prompting a fresh round of tough institutional strategies.

Working together we all need to shift the discourse about research integrity from compliance with rules to prevent misconduct to resourcing practice and valuing positive role models.

What might a more positive approach look like:

1) Integrity advisers who have the role of providing collegiate advice on excellent practice, how best to avoid common pitfalls, and who can promote the message research integrity is primarily about research practice;

2) Resources that support reflective practice and encourage engaged discussion between collaborators;

3) A considerable focus on research training that is disciplinary and methodologically relevant, with different strategies and content to match the expertise of researchers; and

4) First and foremost distributing ownership of the institution’s research integrity arrangements so they belong to the entire research community and are the responsibility of every member of that community.

And now a new edition of the Australian Code is on the horizon. Expecting all researchers irrespective of field, discipline and area of practice to complete a dual usage form is not a promising sign. It seems it’s not yet time to retire my trusty donkey and wooden sword.

References

NHMRC/AVCC (1997) Joint NHMRC / AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/r24 (accessed 12 October 2015).

NHMRC (2007) Australian Code for the responsible conduct of research. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/r39 (accessed 12 October 2015).

Disclaimer
The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Griffith University, AHRECS, my consultancy clients or the NHMRC committees I serve on.

Gary Allen,
Office for Research,
Griffith University
Gary’s AHRECS profile
Gary’s Griffith University profile

This blog may be cited as:
Allen, G (2015, 19 October) Institutional approaches to research integrity: Tilting at blazing windmills?. AHRECS Blog. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/institutional-approaches-to-research-integrity-tilting-at-blazing-windmills

Page 10 of 13« First...89101112...Last »