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
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
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
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

Friend or foe? Building better relationships between HRECs and researchers

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on February 2, 2023
0 Comments
Keywords Ethical review,Good practice,Institutional Responsibilities,Research Ethics Committees
The words, "RESEARCH ETHICS" with an empty pointed list on a notepad surrounded by circular tokens individual letters on each one.

Jess Carniel, University of Southern Queensland

One of the challenges faced by university ethics review boards relates to how the needs of diverse research communities can be best served. Australian Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) face the challenge of being viewed as part of a wider administrative assemblage that, to many researchers, represents a hurdle to research activity. As an anecdotal illustration, a cursory search of social media posts dealing with ethics review boards reveals that researchers are frustrated by ‘obstructive’ committees that are ‘out of touch’ with research practice. (Indeed, our searches revealed a post where one user posted a picture of Edvard Munch’s The Scream to illustrate their frustrations, while in another an image of a traffic jam was used). A search of the scholarly literature on the topic yields similar results: HRECs are seen to be symptomatic of bureaucratic compliance cultures that hinder rather than support research activity. In short, they are seen as more “foe” than “friend” in the research process.

Although criticisms of HRECs are found across all disciplines, a particularly significant trend is evident in accounts arising from the humanities and social sciences (HASS). These disciplines often highlight the mismatch between their research methodologies and the requirements of the ethics review process. This in part stems from perceptions (in some ways valid) that the review process and formulations of research ethics continue to bear the marks of their historical foundations in the biomedical and clinical sciences. Australia’s NHMRC has sought to respond to these criticisms by including HASS experts in their revisions of the National Statement, but many HASS researchers completing ethics applications still feel as though they are fitting square pegs into round holes.

For some institutions, the implementation of discipline-specific HREC sub-committees in schools or faculties goes some way toward addressing the issue of being misunderstood by committees unfamiliar with particular methods or protocols. However, this may not be practical for smaller institutions with limited resources and staffing. Furthermore, it may not address the “friend or foe” mentality held by many researchers towards HRECs and the ethics review process.

To mitigate some of these challenges, we recommend the following practices:

Discipline diplomats: membership and expertise Playing an active role in fostering the research community The ethical mindset of the HREC itself HRECs as the critical friend

Discipline diplomats: membership and expertise

The National Statement mandates the composition of HRECs, including the requirement that at least two people with current research experience relevant to the application under review are included in assessment processes. In order to ensure that the committee can best serve its research community, it is important that this membership is representative of the institution’s researchers, and its research agendas and priorities.

When a growth area is identified, HRECs must make a concerted effort to recruit the necessary expertise to address it. For example, when our own institution introduced a creative arts doctorate that encouraged candidates to work in innovative practice-led research methodologies, the committee’s lack of familiarity with these research approaches presented a stumbling block in the conduct of reviews. To address this, we actively recruited an academic with expertise in arts- and practice-led research and understanding of the vagaries of creative arts higher degree research. Taking this action not only served the needs of the committee, but also researchers working in this field. In addition to providing and important point of ‘translation’ across these research approaches, the ‘discipline diplomat’ was also positioned to be able to mediate details of the ethics review process back to the discipline’s researchers.

This diplomatic approach to ethics review facilitates a more friendly (and therefore productive) relationship between the committee and researchers. Furthermore, its pedagogical emphasis – that is, always working to facilitate learning and understanding for both the committee and the researcher – helps to build the capacity of the committee which leads to a more confident assessment of applications and the enactment of disciplinarily relevant reviews.

Playing an active role in fostering the research community

HRECs are an important part of the research bureaucracy in universities but seeing ethics review as solely a bureaucratic or compliance-driven process is bad for research – and for the souls of the HREC members!

To counter the perception that HRECs are driven by bureaucratic process solely, HRECs need to instead demonstrate that they are indeed more than ‘process’; that they understand the dynamics of research practice and the affective dimensions of the review process. This does not mean passing all applications without question to win researchers over. Rather, HRECs need to position themselves within the research community, not just within the research bureaucracy.

This can be achieved in several ways. First, through outreach to researchers and the delivery of engaging workshops and presentations that illuminate ethics processes and provide bespoke support to disciplinary researchers. This should include the provision of workshops for higher degree and early career researchers and offering casual drop-in sessions; both initiatives able to be conducted in-person or online, and vital for providing researchers an opportunity to ask questions in a supportive and collegial forum. Beyond sessions that focus on the practical dimensions of completing the ethical review process, the HRECs should participate in or facilitate other events in the research calendar that encourage researchers to see and understand ethics as intrinsic to their research identity and practice, and not just a form to fill.

Next, ensuring that feel engaged in a meaningful dialogue when they are undergoing the ethics review process. This can be achieved by guiding them in the initial application, and meeting to discuss and advise on the outcomes of a review, particularly when the review comments are extensive or complicated. In this way, the ethics review process itself becomes collaborative and generative, and is particularly helpful for student and early-career researchers. (This is also where the discipline diplomats can play an important role).

Such approaches enable researchers and committees to engage with each other as peers within a research community rather than as foes in a bureaucratic process.

The ethical mindset of the HREC itself

Just as the previous section worked to dislodge the idea that the HRECs and ethics review are solely about bureaucracy and process, it is important to foster a culture within the HREC itself that challenges this view.

The composition of a HREC necessarily involves some pragmatism. Members may often join committees to fulfil a particular service obligation or requirement, and committees may seek members to fulfil particular roles that are needed. Nevertheless, individual members and the HREC as a whole need to keep their purpose in mind: to facilitate the ethical conduct of research at that institution. Importantly, with the exception of egregiously unethical research designs and premises, the purpose of the HREC isn’t necessarily to stop research from happening but to make sure it happens in the most ethical way possible. Feedback from the committee to the researcher should always be filtered through the question of: what does the researcher need to know or do to make this possible?

HRECs as the critical friend

A distant and regulatory HREC might be bureaucratically expedient, but it does little to help cultivate a strong research community. By being the critical friend that ensures that researchers in all disciplines feel both represented and heard in the ethics review process, HRECs can help to address matters of research integrity wholistically and as intrinsic to the research process and identity.

This post may be cited as:
Carniel, J. (2 February 2023) Friend or foe? Building better relationships between HRECs and researchers Research Ethics Monthly: https://ahrecs.com/friend-or-foe-building-better-relationships-between-hrecs-and-researchers/

Related reading

You must be this ethical…

How we interpret the words ‘proportional review’

Proportional processes can sometimes be the answer to a few (apparently competing) problems

Is it something I said (or the way I said it)?

REAlising a collegiate Research Ethics Adviser network

Ten ways of ensuring affordable professional development in your institution

What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Jess Carniel

Sp-user Link
Jess Carniel is Senior Lecturer in Humanities in the School of Humanities and Communication. She is also Deputy Chair of the UniSQ Human Research Ethics Committee and an Executive Member of the Centre for Heritage and Culture. Drawing upon a broad humanistic tradition, she teaches the history of ideas, ethics, international relations, and critical theory. She has previously taught into the areas of Australian Studies, Gender Studies, Sports Studies, International Studies, and History at the University of Melbourne, Monash University, and Victoria University. Located within the field of cultural studies, her research interests encompass multiculturalism, gender, and cultural representations in Australian and global society. She has published widely on gender and ethnic identities in popular culture in multicultural Australia, including literature, film, television, and sport. Jess is Australia’s preeminent scholar of the Eurovision Song Contest, focusing her research on understanding its meaning and significance for Australian audiences within a changing context of multiculturalism, globalisation, and shifting regional geopolitics. She is the author of Understanding the Eurovision Song Contest in Multicultural Australia (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) and the co-editor of Eurovision and Australia: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Down Under (with Chris Hay (UQ) Palgrave Macmillan, 2019). With her expertise in cultural studies, Jess is keen to supervise research projects that seek to understand how cultures, communities, and identities navigate contemporary society and politics in Australia and globally. This can include popular culture, local communities, and global movements and events. She is particularly interested in projects centred on ideas of soft power and cultural diplomacy.
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

Other Authors

Andrew Hickey

Andrew Hickey is Professor in Communications in the School of Humanities and Communication. Since his doctoral (Ph.D) research which explored the role and influence of mass communication and 'public pedagogical artefacts' on the development of a community, Andrew has published in areas of critical pedagogy, public pedagogies and emancipatory social practice. He has also led funded research projects exploring the role of community in the development of social harmony. Apart from these professional concerns, Andrew is an ardent advocate for blues music and the restorative properties of an overdriven electric guitar. He plays in a blues-rock band, and when not sending himself deaf at late night gigs, is usually found demonstrating classic riffs from the blues masters to his partner and two boys. Andrew can be contacted via the School of Humanities and Communication, USQ. E: andrew.hickey@usq,edu.au

Sp-user
Kim Southey

Fields of Research (FoR) Business and Management not elsewhere classified ( 150399 ) Human Resources And Industrial Relations ( 350500 ) Research interests Human resource management, employee engagement, employee conduct and performance management

Sp-user
Annette Bromdal

Annette Brömdal is an Associate Professor in Sport, Health and Physical Education at UniSQ. Prior to their academic position at UniSQ Annette worked at the United Nations Development Fund for Women (now UN WOMEN) and coordinated projects and initiatives preventing trafficking in women in Thailand by addressing normative dimensions of demand. Annette’s research interests fall within the areas of bodies, gender and sexuality in elite sports, medicine, contemporary sexuality education, the corrective service system, and around ageing, specifically associated with critical intersex studies and critical trans discourses. Annette is currently leading a research project investigating the lived experiences of formerly incarcerated trans persons in Australia and collaborates with scholars in associated fields in the US, New Zealand and Europe. Annette’s contribution to quality research and publications, and learning and teaching have been recognised through the UniSQ School of Education's Q1 Research Awards (2020); UniSQ Unit-Specific Publication Excellence Award (2019), and the School of Education Teaching Excellence Award (2015, Deakin) for their sustained excellence in Good Teaching from 2012 -2015. Annette's teaching is underpinned by collaborative practice, inquiry-based learning, critical pedagogy, and social-activist-educator-ideology. Annette has also received a UniSQ Highly Commended Excellence Award for Diversity and Inclusion in 2020. A/Prof Brömdal is an International Sociological Association's 2023 Local Organising Committee Member responsible for the 2023 World Congress for Sociology's Inclusion and Equity portfolio and is currently working towards the 2023 World Congress of Sociology in Melbourne. Annette is the past Co-Convenor of the Gender, Sexualities and Cultural SIG for AARE (2016 - 2020) and currently a Queensland Queering Education Consultative Committee member. Within the UniSQ Annette is the School of Education Director for all the Non-Initial Teacher Education Programs in the School; an Academic Team Leader for 10 academics in the School; a UniSQ Human Research Ethics Committee member; and a UniSQ SAGE Athena Swan Committee member.

Sp-user
Lynda Crowley

Fields of Research (FoR) Law not elsewhere classified ( 180199 ) Public Law not elsewhere classified ( 480799 ) Public Law ( 480700 ) Research interests Mental Health Law Public Health and Safety Warning Sign Design Negligence Work-Related Mental Injuries Legal and Health Ethics Public Authority Liability Marine Stingers

Sp-user
Douglas Eacersall

As an academic at USQ, the Learning Advisor works with students enrolled in Higher Degree Research (HDR) programs, and collaborates with other university staff, to support student learning and development. The Learning Advisor provides one-to-one consultations, as well as developing and delivering teaching and learning resources for HDR students, and working with academic staff and researchers to identify and address student learning needs. The Learning Advisor participates in relevant scholarship to enhance support for research at USQ.

Sp-user
Will Farmer

Richard Gehrmann

Fields of Research (FoR) Studies in Human Society not elsewhere classified ( 169999 ) Cultural Studies not elsewhere classified ( 200299 ) Historical Studies not elsewhere classified ( 210399 ) Other Human Society not elsewhere classified ( 449999 ) Cultural Studies not elsewhere classified ( 470299 ) Historical Studies not elsewhere classified ( 430399 ) Historical Studies ( 430300 ) Cultural Studies ( 470200 ) Other Human Society ( 449900 )

Sp-user
Tanya Machin

Fields of Research (FoR) Social and Community Psychology ( 170113 ) Communication Technology and Digital Media Studies ( 200102 ) Social Psychology ( 520505 ) Community Psychology ( 520501 ) Communication Technology And Digital Media Studies ( 470102 ) Social And Personality Psychology ( 520500 ) Communication And Media Studies ( 470100 ) Child And Adolescent Development ( 520101 ) Industrial And Organisational Psychology (incl. Human Factors) ( 520104 ) Applied And Developmental Psychology ( 520100 )

Sp-user
Yosheen Pillay

Fields of Research (FoR) Educational Counselling ( 130305 ) Other Psychology and Cognitive Sciences ( 179900 ) Specialist Studies in Education ( 130300 ) Education not elsewhere classified ( 139999 ) Specialist Studies In Education ( 390400 ) Other Education not elsewhere classified ( 399999 ) Other Psychology ( 529900 ) Other Education ( 399900 ) Specialist Studies In Education not elsewhere classified ( 390499 ) Other Psychology not elsewhere classified ( 529999 )

Sp-user

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

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
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in