ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesBeneficence

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines, Philippines (NCIP | 2012)0

Posted by Admin in on July 5, 2018
 

National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2012

I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Section 1. Title. This guideline shall be known as “The Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines of 2012.

Section 2. Legal Bases.
This Guidelines is hereby promulgated pursuant to the Constitution, Republic Act No. 8371 and other pertinent and applicable laws, international covenants, treaties and declarations.

Section 3. Policy Statement.

It is the policy of the Commission to:

a. Promote, protect and recognize the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) to cultural integrity and to prescribe protection mechanisms at the international and national government levels and within the context of relevant customary laws;

b. Ensure and guarantee the due exercise by the concerned ICCs/IPs of their right to allow or reject, through free and prior informed consent (FPIC), research and documentation of their IKSPs and customary laws and their derivatives; and

c. Regulate the use of IKSPs and customary laws, and ensure that the ICCs/IPs benefit from the use of research output/outcome.

Read the rest of the Filipino guidelines

 

National Commission for Indigenous Peoples, Philippines (2012) The Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines of 2012. NCIP Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2012.
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ph/ph190en.pdf

The Lifespan of a Lie – Medium (Ben Blum | June 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on July 1, 2018
 

The most famous psychology study of all time was a sham. Why can’t we escape the Stanford Prison Experiment?

It was late in the evening of August 16th, 1971, and twenty-two-year-old Douglas Korpi, a slim, short-statured Berkeley graduate with a mop of pale, shaggy hair, was locked in a dark closet in the basement of the Stanford psychology department, naked beneath a thin white smock bearing the number 8612, screaming his head off.

Blog post and interviews that underpins the recent (June 2018) Inside HigherEd story reflecting on the legacy of the Stamford Prison Experiment.

“I mean, Jesus Christ, I’m burning up inside!” he yelled, kicking furiously at the door. “Don’t you know? I want to get out! This is all fucked up inside! I can’t stand another night! I just can’t take it anymore!”
.
It was a defining moment in what has become perhaps the best-known psychology study of all time. Whether you learned about Philip Zimbardo’s famous “Stanford Prison Experiment” in an introductory psych class or just absorbed it from the cultural ether, you’ve probably heard the basic story.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece  

Time to Dismiss the Stanford Prison Experiment? – Inside Higher Ed (Greg Toppo | June 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on June 24, 2018
 

The 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment has long been considered a window into the horrors ordinary people can inflict on one another, but new interviews with participants and reconsideration of archival records shed more light on the findings

The Stanford Prison Experiment is often (too often) used to justify why research ethics review arrangements exist. The use of scandal egregious ethical lapses are fundamentally flawed – because they implicitly reinforce the message that the role of review is to protect participants from dangers a reckless researcher might fail to recognise. This discussion piece suggests there is another reason not to use it: The research design might have been seriously flawed and the conclusions it reached possibly false.

Since its inception nearly 47 years ago, the Stanford Prison Experiment has become a kind of grim psychological touchstone, an object lesson in humans’ hidden ability to act sadistically — or submissively — as social conditions permit.
.
Along with Yale University researcher Stanley Milgram’s 1960s experiments on human cruelty, the August 1971 experiment has captured Americans’ imaginations for nearly half a century. It is a long-standing staple of psychology and social science textbooks and has been invoked to explain horrors as wide-ranging as the Holocaust, the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib prisoner-torture scandal.
.
But new interviews with participants and reconsideration of archival records are shedding new light on the experiment, questioning a few of its bedrock assumptions about human behavior.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

NDA (Ireland) Ethical Guidance for Research with People with Disabilities (Guidance | 2009)0

Posted by Admin in on June 20, 2018
 

“As the field of disability research in Ireland expands, it is vital that quality in such research be ensured.

In accordance with its statutory role in relation to disability research, the National Disability Authority offers new ethical guidelines for disability research as a resource to assist the expansion of quality disability research in Ireland. The guidelines have been drawn up through consideration of best practice internationally alongside a wide process of consultation, in particular consultation with people with disabilities.

These guidelines are designed to be used by those involved in funding, conducting, or managing disability research, most especially that which involves people with disabilities as participants. They do not replace existing general ethical guidelines in social and policy research but supplement them by providing an outline of key issues from a disability perspective.”

Access the guidance

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION TO DISABILITY RESEARCH AND ETHICS 5
2. ETHICAL GUIDANCE ON RESEARCH WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 11
3. CORE VALUES FOR RESEARCH WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 17
4. GUIDANCE FOR GOOD PRACTICE IN RESEARCH WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 23
5. CASE STUDIES 45
6 REFERENCES 55
APPENDIX 1 69
ENDNOTES 75

 

0