Ethics CoPs not Ethics Police: Building communities of practice in ethics and integrity
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…
A new approach to the AHRECS site
In response to community feedback, from 1 November 2020, only papers, books and genuine resources will be posted to the AHRECS Resource Library; news and announcements will be posted to the feeds page. Â Searches of the site can include searches of the feed. Links to Research Ethics Monthly editions will also be posted to the feeds page. Â Please bear with us as we move all existing news items over to the feed. Eventually, this approach will make it easier to distinguish between research outputs and news items about human research ethics and research integrity.
Our work around the world
Close to the bottom of our revamped home page is a world map that tags the places we have been commissioned to conduct Human Research Ethics or Research Integrity work or where we have conducted philanthropic/academic/volunteer/unpaid work. Want to explore if we can do some work for you? Terrific! Drop us a line to enquiry@ahrecs.com so we can discuss your ideas.
Working flexibly through the Coronavirus: Continuing professional development in research integrity or human research ethics?
Research ethics and research integrity professional development works best as a long-term commitment to building the capacity of the current
Research ethics review during a time of pandemic
Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson COVID-19 is prompting changes to academic delivery, essentially intended to contain the spread
Question for Research Ethics Monthly readers: Win for your institution a new 12-month subscription to https://www.ahrecs.vip
Prof. Mark Israel and Dr Gary Allen We would like to encourage institutions to try out the ahrecs.vip set of
Smarter proportional research ethics review
Rushing toward a faster review decision should not mean relaxing standards or playing chicken with stricter central control Gary Allen,
Update on the new subscribers’ area
We are currently expecting the new service to go live prior to us sending the July 2019 edition of the Research Ethics
Categories
Featured posts
Hong Kong Principles
The publication of the Hong Kong Principles comes at a time when there has never been more scrutiny of research. In this pandemic, the importance of science has been reinforced time and time again, but the importance of efforts to enhance reproducibility and transparency in research has also come to the fore. What the Hong Kong Principles do is provide a framework whereby research practices that strengthen integrity in research – a core component of reproducibility and trustworthiness – can be recognised, supported and rewarded.
The F-word, or how to fight fires in the research literature
Professor Jennifer Byrne | University of Sydney Medical School and Children’s Hospital at Westmead
Expertise in ethics, research ethics or review?
In this terrific and thoughtful post, Colin Thomson AM, a Senior Adviser to AHRECS, reflects on what we mean when we talk about expertise i the context of Human Research Ethics Review.
Do we mean expertise in ethics, research ethics or ethics review or a combination?
Do they fit together seamlessly and easily or is there an incongruence?
He frames these matters, when talking about research ethics committee members and research ethics reviewers across ten important categories.
He then suggests ten tests that could be usefully applied to evaluate the quality of review feedback.
How your institution’s research ethics committee and its review feedback fare if judged against this criteria?
Is it time they had some professional development? Does the Committee’s standard operating procedures need to be updated?
This is a valuable read for research ethics committee Chairs, Secretaries and members.
Empowering and enabling participation in human research: Reflections from two Queenslanders living with Multiple Sclerosis
Dr Gary Allen MS Qld Ambassador | AHRECS Senior Consultant | Member NS s4