ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesCreative

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(Australia) Outrage over minister cancelling research grants – University World News (Geoff Maslen | October 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on October 30, 2018
 

Revelations that a former federal education minister interfered in a competitive research grants process and cancelled 11 humanities and social sciences projects, costed at more than AU$4 million (US$2.8 million), has generated outrage across Australia’s higher education sector.

The decision by former education minister Simon Birmingham last year and early this year to override recommendations from the Australian Research Council (ARC) was belatedly revealed in federal parliament on Thursday night.

ARC officials were being questioned during a Senate hearing and explained how Birmingham had stepped in to reject the council’s decision that 11 of the research projects be funded.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities (Papers: Tennille L. Marley | 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on September 16, 2018
 

Abstract
American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people.

Keywords Indigenous data sovereignty, American Indian and Alaska Native, Indigenous people, qualitative data

Marley, T. L. “Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities.” American Behavioral Scientist 0(0): 0002764218799130.
Publisher: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764218799130#articleCitationDownloadContainer

Ethical Requirements and Responsibilities in Video Methodologies: Considering Confidentiality and Representation in Social Justice Research (Papers: Steph M. Anderson and Carolina Muñoz Proto 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on October 30, 2016
 

Abstract

In recent years, psychologists have begun to use video more frequently in qualitative research, in particular, within research on social justice. The non-confidential nature inherent in video, however, raises new ethical challenges for the field of psychology to address. Building upon a growing literature on video-based research, in this article, we use an illustrative case study to examine how researchers’ sense of ethical responsibility can find guidance from, clash against, or fill gaps left by extant federal and disciplinary ethical requirements. We focus specifically on issues of confidentiality and representation, highlighting the challenges and possibilities that video creates in relation to participants’ power, dignity, and participation and arguing that psychologists must systematically engage questions about ethical responsibilities throughout the design and implementation phases of a research project. In doing so, psychologists, their community partners, and students will be better able to articulate and problematize their assumptions and intentions regarding video work.

Anderson SM and Muñoz CP (2016) Ethical Requirements and Responsibilities in Video Methodologies: Considering Confidentiality and Representation in Social Justice Research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 10(7) pp377-389 DOI 10.1111/spc3.12259
Publisher: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12259/abstract
Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304821606_Ethical_Requirements…
Academia: https://www.academia.edu/28516816/Ethical_Requirements…

A Critique of Current Practice: Ten Foundational Guidelines for Autoethnographers (Martin Tolich 2010)0

Posted by Admin in on June 3, 2016
 

Abstract: Any research is potentially compromised when researchers address ethical issues retrospectively rather than by anticipating these issues. In this regard, creative analytical practices (CAP) autoethnography has endemic problems. In Part 1 of this article, I detail a case study of an autoethnography in which journal reviewers insisted that an author gain retrospective informed consent from the 23 persons documented in an autoethnography. Yet the journal reviewers’ insistence failed to go one step further—acknowledging that a conflict of interest develops when gaining consent retrospectively. In Part 2, I contrast three leading autoethnographers’ justifications for not gaining informed consent with the Position Statement on Qualitative Research developed by successive Congresses of Qualitative Inquiry. In Part 3, I identify resources available for autoethnographers, including ethical issues present when researchers use autoethnography to heal themselves, violating the internal confidentiality of relational others. In Part 4, I question if autoethnography is research and, like journalism, exempt from formal ethics review. Throughout the article, 10 foundational ethical considerations for autoethnographers are developed, taking autoethnographers beyond procedural ethics and providing tools for their ethics in practice.

Keywords: ethics / moral perspectives; ethnography; photography / photovoice; research, qualitative

Tolich (2010) A Critique of Current Practice: Ten Foundational Guidelines for Autoethnographers. Qualitative Health Research. 20(12):1599-610. doi: 10.1177/1049732310376076.
Publisher: http://qhr.sagepub.com/content/20/12/1599.long

0