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

Going video: A chance to change review practice?

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on November 10, 2020
0 Comments
Keywords Ethical review,Good practice,Research Ethics Committees
The words "ETHICS COMMITTEE" seen through a curled rip of paper

Dr Gary Allen, AHRECS senior consultant

For more than a decade, we have been conducting desktop audits of human research ethics arrangements of institutions, observing review body meetings, coaching committees and mentoring Chairs and Executive Officers.

We would like to share a few general observations:

  1. Any large complex system that settles into a routine can be resistant to change.
  2. Responding to questions about the value of a process or the usefulness of an alternative with something along the lines of “but we’ve always done things this way”, should be the start of, not the end of probing conversation. Yes, you have been doing things a certain way for a while, but is it the best way?
  3. A committee that feels under-resourced and is just coping with high workloads can suspend professional development for members and researchers, because it may be perceived as a luxury. This suspension can become the new normal, particularly given the tightening financial constraints being felt by the sector.

At a time where you might be fighting to keeping your head above water during staff cuts, budget austerity and increased workload, it may sound odd to ask:

Can anything constructive come out of COVID-19 and social distancing?

We suggest it can. The lockdowns associated with COVID-19 have changed the ways in which many people have become used to communicating. This has been reflected by modifying the review process to conduct meetings via videoconferencing. As a result, there is a unique opportunity within meetings to have live discussion online with applicants to clear up any matters that might be settled quickly or to explain the committee’s views in a manner that opens up conversation and avoids the generation of duelling emails.

It is vital that this interaction be approached with a view to facilitating the project not policing compliance.

We suggest:

  1. Applicants – and, if a student, their primary supervisor – nominate a video-link or phone number so they can be contacted during the meeting if the review body has any questions. Alternatively, applicants can be sent an invitation to join a meeting (e.g. via Zoom) at a specified time.
  2. In most cases, the call wouldn’t go through all the review feedback (especially if it will be refined later by the Chair and Executive Officer).
  3. The review body should
    1. agree on one thing the applicants can be congratulated on.
    2. explore what additional guidance material or other resources the applicant would find helpful before the applicant responds to the review feedback.[1]

This approach can lead to a shared understanding of the project, and collaboration between the review body and applicants in order to ensure that the project is ethically acceptable.  It can also result in a more efficient review process!

Also see our earlier posts about:

  • review feedback;
  • Research Ethics Advisers;
  • proportional review;
  • A checklist for supervisors; and
  • Worried your researchers might not be treating human research ethics as a core component of good research practice? Concerned they are not seeing it as their responsibility?

And also:

  • Watch our 7 minute whiteboard about resourcing reflective practice.
  • Read Allen, G & Israel, M (2018) Moving beyond Regulatory Compliance: Building Institutional Support for Ethical Reflection in Research. In Iphofen, R & Tolich, M (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: Sage. pp276-288; and
  • Read Israel, M, Allen, G & Thomson, C (2016) Australian Research Ethics Governance: Plotting the Demise of the Adversarial Culture. In van den Hoonaard, W & Hamilton, A (eds) The Ethics Rupture: Exploring Alternatives to Formal Research-Ethics Review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp 285-316. http://www.utppublishing.com/The-Ethics-Rupture-Exploring-Alternatives-to-Formal-Research-Ethics-Review.html

[1] Such as the University Research Ethics Manual (UREM) and the network of collegiate Research Ethics Advisers.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. (10 November 2020) Going video: A chance to change review practice? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/going-video-a-chance-to-change-review-practice/

Related reading

Updated checklist for HDR Supervisors

Worried your researchers might not be treating human research ethics as a core component of good research practice? Concerned they are not seeing it as their responsibility?

How we interpret the words ‘proportional review’

A checklist to assist a supervisor to check a candidate’s research ethics review application

Smarter proportional research ethics 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

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

About the Corresponding Author

Dr. Gary Allen

Sp-user Link
Gary is an experienced ethics officer and commentator on Human Research Ethics and Research Integrity
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail 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