Research Ethics Monthly
ISSN 2206-2483
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…
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…
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…
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Categories
Featured posts
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
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.
Related Links
Research Ethics Monthly
No posts found.