Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly

ISSN 2206-2483

  • Home
  • >
  • Page 4
Ethics Honesty Responsibility Education Learning Business concept.

Effective use of research management systems

Dr Gary Allen April 28, 2022 No Comments
Read More
Two people collaborating at a table

Ethics CoPs not Ethics Police: Building communities of practice in ethics and integrity

March 10, 2021 No Comments

In this post Gary Allen and Mark Israel discuss seeding and supporting virtual and physical Communities of Practice and their value over enforcement and policing.

Gary Allen and Mark Israel

Research ethics professionals have grown wary of researchers who talk disparagingly about the work of research ethics reviewers as the ‘ethics police’ (Klitzman, 2015; Makhoul et al., 2014). So, there is more than a little irony in our suggestion for responding constructively to such an adversarial stance (Allen & Israel, 2018) – the Community of Practice (CoP).

A CoP is characterised by a shared area of knowledge and set of practices within which experiences and insights can be shared and learning can be fostered (Wenger et al., 2002). Done well, a CoP can result in continual improvement across and…

Read More
The fall of the Babylon. Sorcerer in hood standing in front of an ancient destructed Babylon tower with flood, fire & hurricane illustration.

The Tower of Babel and Human Research Ethics

February 23, 2021 1 Comment

Gary Allen and Mark Israel reflect on constructive approaches to languages in human research and for research ethics committees.

Gary Allen and Mark Israel

Much human research is conducted in languages that are not the same as that used by the research ethics review body or the chief investigators. This can manifest in a number of ways including:

Recruitment and consent materials;
Data collection tools (surveys, interview instruments and observation matrices), and
Collected data.
return of results to participants

There is literature on the ethics of interpreting and translation (Drugan, 2017) as well as on the ethics of research in those fields (Tiselius, 2019). However, for our purposes, we want to focus on the first two situations…

Read More
Disabled male in a wheelchair meeting with his colleagues at a table

Heeding our stories: Getting the most from a reference group in disability research

February 22, 2021 1 Comment

Gary Allen, Carolyn Ehrlich, Michael Norwood, Delena Amsters and Maddy Slattery’s post reflecting on great engagements with disability reference groups.

Here, we aim to share insights from a group of Griffith University researchers and a consumer reference group, who worked together on a research project during the development of materials and methods, as well as in the dissemination of research outcomes. The research project we conducted aimed to explore the research experience of people with acquired disability. We wanted to understand what researchers could do better to be more inclusive of people who are often described as vulnerable or marginalised by the National Statement and subsequently Human Research Ethics Committees. We wanted to know how to best include them as participants in, rather than subjects of, research.
This is not a post advocating for the use of reference groups for research involving those with disability and chronic health conditions. Calls for respectful inclusion have already been eloquently made…

Read More
Noticeboard with the words "Research Ethics" written across it.

Research Ethics: The Journal

February 22, 2021 No Comments

We note that the journal, Research Ethics, is now Open Access. https://journals.sagepub.com/description/rea

Research Ethics is aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in the conduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research. The journal aims to promote, provoke, host and engage in open and public debate about research ethics on an international scale but also to contribute to the education of researchers and reviewers of research…

All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors.

Read More
Best practice

Image library

January 27, 2021 No Comments

Frequent visitors to the website of AHRECS will have noticed a change to the library of images we use across the site (e.g. the Resource Library and the Research Ethics Monthly).

We did this to refresh our library of images at the same time as we updated nearly all sections of our website.

We have also made the conscious decision to remove the watermark from our images. As a result, it should be easier for the human research ethics and research integrity community to find useful images for your needs.

Read More
A row of dice sitting on the trigger of a metal trap displaying the word "RISK"

A big bear trap on the horizon

January 27, 2021 No Comments

Many Australian research bodies link to the National Statement. They do so through websites, policy documents, professional development material and other resources.

This is logical and makes it easier for researchers and others to access the national policy/guidance material.

Another reason to do this is that it makes it easier for researchers to see the external impetus for the institution’s arrangements and provides a source of further information and guidance.

Read More
A 3d figure inspecting a standing copy of the word "RISK" through a magnifying glass

Why human research ethics and research integrity aren’t fire blankets

January 27, 2021 No Comments

Let’s start with fire safety.  Used correctly, fire blankets (and other fire protection equipment) can manage a hazard and prevent increased harm.  Institutions have a regulatory responsibility to make staff aware of standards by providing training in fire safety and correct behaviour.

SYNERGY ONE

While in Australia there is no human research ethics legislation, the National Statement is generally recognised as the national standard for human research ethics.  The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is the national standard for research integrity.  Similarly, researchers need to be aware of the institution’s and national policies, procedures and arrangements with regards to human research ethics/research integrity (NS 3.47, AC Researcher Responsibility 16).

Read More
Graphic of camera observation of the community

Should we accept funding for facial recognition research, and other dilemmas?

January 26, 2021 No Comments

Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson|
PEER REVIEWED

In the 1980s and 1990s, many research institutions made the principled and commendable decision not to accept funding from the tobacco industry.

This reflected the recognition of the awful health impacts of tobacco use and the degree to which the industry was muddying the waters of public debate with academic and clinical research questioning the veracity of the overwhelming body of evidence that clearly showed the dire dangers of activity such as smoking. While we continue to be shocked by cases such those like the research of Hans J Eysenck (and this), for the main it is accepted that receiving funding from the tobacco industry is not in the public’s best interest.

Read More
Previous Page1 Page2 Page3 Page4 Page5 Page6 … Page25 Next

Categories

AHRECS Admin
17
Animal Ethics
2
Global Ethics
1
Human Research Ethics
160
Research Integrity
57
Services
27
Uncategorized
2

Featured posts

Two serious women in a meeting sitting at a table in the office together analysing paperwork

Magical incantations and the tyranny of the template

December 21, 2017 No Comments

Building the Conversation This month’s addition to the Building the Conversation series reflects upon

We respect you… we just don’t need to hear from you anymore: Should the consumer and their community participate in research as partners instead of just being subjects?

June 21, 2019 1 Comment

By Dr Gary Allen| Senior Policy Officer, Office for Research Griffith University | Ambassador

Advances in Medicine often require innovation in ethical thinking too

December 22, 2019 No Comments

Nik Zeps and Tanya Symons AHRECS Consultant Breakthroughs in medicine often highlight the existing

A grinning guard troll typing

Investigating an ethical barrier – should HRECs require gatekeeper approval from universities before external research?

February 14, 2022 No Comments

Investigating an ethical barrier – should HRECs require gatekeeper approval from universities before external research? | In this traffic post, Kate Christian questions the elephant in the room when it comes to research about universities.

Why do ethics committees require the approval of the institution?

Especially when participants aren’t vulnerable.

Whose interests are they protecting and why?

For national research, the results can be time-consuming, frustrating and add a little to the research.

Early career researchers might meekly accept this but it sucks time, energy and resources. But research Ethics committees should ask themselves the questions: Is this efficient and is it fair? Insisting upon institutional approval may well be skewing the data and distorting the results?

Subscribe to newsletter

The Research Ethics Monthly is a free monthly publication about human research ethics and research integrity. It is emailed to our subscribers generally towards the end of every month.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Related Links

  • Comment Rules
  • Complaints against the Research Ethics Monthly
  • Request a Take Down
  • Submission guidelines
  • About the Research Ethics Monthly
  • About Subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

Research Ethics Monthly

No posts found.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in