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

ResourcesCreative

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(Canada) Learning to be refused: exploring refusal, consent and care in storytelling research (Papers: May Chazan & Melissa Baldwin | July 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on July 14, 2020
 

ABSTRACT
In 2018 in Nogojiwanong (Peterborough, Canada), we invited 17 activists, artists, and academics to share stories of intergenerational memory work – including land-based practices, ceremony, arts, and archiving – as ways of resisting erasure and making change. We grounded this research-generation workshop, Manifesting Resistance: Intergenerational Memory Work across ‘the Americas’, in storytelling from our gathering place, on Michi Saagiig territory; our methods included guided conversations, small group interviews, collaborative media making, and embodied workshops. As two settler researchers on a research team of eight (of different backgrounds, career stages, ancestries, and connections to Turtle Island (North America)), we centred a relational research ethics, drawing from feminist and postcolonial writings on anti-oppressive research and decolonial writings on refusal, relationality, and care. Despite our critical intentions, this research process was ethially complex. Drawing on fieldnotes and recordings, and inspired by scholars like Audra Simpson, we explore two key expressions of research refusal, how and why participants refused this research, and the connections between being refused and gaining consent. We illustrate how these research refusals generated critical knowledges, communities, processes, and spaces, and how negotiating consent in the context of these refusals (by slowing down, listening, and shifting our process) offered important challenges to institutional ethics.

KEYWORDS:
Consent, research refusal, decolonial methodologies, relational ethics, indigenous-settler relations

Chazan, M. & Baldwin, M. (2020) Learning to be refused: exploring refusal, consent and care in storytelling research. Postcolonial Studies.  DOI 10.1080/13688790.2020.1781324
Publisher: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13688790.2020.1781324

(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…

0