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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesCulture

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Marginalized Populations and Research Ethics Online (Papers: Oliver Haimson 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on February 28, 2016
 

Abstract: To respectfully and accurately represent marginalized peoples’ experiences in online communities research, great care must be taken to ethically approach such research. In this position paper, we explore and ask questions about the ethical gray areas that occur when studying marginalized groups online. We argue that greater input and feedback from members of study populations, during the research and the peer review process, could help marginalized communities by increasing accurate and respectful representations of group members’ experiences and by improving design recommendations that come from research results. We offer several suggestions going forward for CSCW online communities researchers.

Haimson O, Ringland K & . (2015, March 16). Marginalized Populations and Research Ethics Online. Paper presented at CSCW Workshop on Ethics for Studying Sociotechnical Systems in a Big Data World.
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281693003_Marginalized_Populations_and_Research_Ethics_Online
Conference: https://cscwethics2015.wordpress.com/

The Politicisation of Ethics Review in New Zealand (Book: Martin Tolich and Barry Smith 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on February 14, 2016
 

Description: The National Women’s Hospital research scandal saw women being involved in medical research without their knowledge and without the opportunity to make a choice about their participation. The 1988 Cartwright Inquiry into this decades-long study established a template for ethics review in New Zealand. Ethics committees were subsequently established to independently evaluate the potential benefits as well as the risks of research.

This book traces the gradual undermining of the independence of ethics review in New Zealand and the politicisation of ethics committees between 1988 and 2014. There have been substantial changes in this review process brought about by government in response to other medical crises such as that which occurred in Gisborne in the late 1990s and then an “economic crisis” between 2008 and 2010 that involved international pharmaceutical companies.

This book explores the implications of these changes for a robust ethics review process across research environments in New Zealand, especially those affecting Maori. It includes recommendations aimed at enhancing independent ethics review, best practice, and providing adequate protection for all citizens.

Tolich, M. & Smith, B. (2015). The Politicisation of Ethics Review in New Zealand. Auckland: Dunmore. 241 pages.
http://www.dunmore.co.nz/products/879082?barcode=9781927212202&title=ThePoliticisationofEthicsReviewinNewZealand

Applying “Place” to Research Ethics and Cultural Competence/Humility Training (Papers: Dianne P Quigley 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on February 4, 2016
 

Abstract: Research ethics principles and regulations typically have been applied to the protection of individual human subjects. Yet, new paradigms of research that include the place-based community and cultural groups as partners or participants of environmental research interventions, in particular, require attention to place-based identities and geographical contexts. This paper argues the importance of respecting “place” within human subjects protections applied to communities and cultural groups as part of a critical need for research ethics and cultural competence training for graduate research students. These protections and benefits are extensions of the Belmont Principles and have been included in recent recommendations from research regulatory committees.

Keywords: Human subjects Beneficence Justice Group protections Cultural competence Community-based research Bioethical principles

Quigley D (2016) Applying “Place” to Research Ethics and Cultural Competence/Humility Training. Journal of Academic Ethics March 2016, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 19-33 (First online 13 January 2016, Accessed 5 February) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10805-015-9251-5

I’m Okay, You’re Okay?: Reflections on the Well-Being and Ethical Requirements of Researchers and Research Participants in Conducting Qualitative Fieldwork Interviews (Papers: Wendy Mitchell and Annie Irvine 2008)0

Posted by Admin in on February 3, 2016
 

Abstract: In this paper the authors present their reflections on a U.K. government–funded study exploring mental health and employment. Conducting research on a sensitive theme with a potentially vulnerable group gave renewed focus to some social research issues, including consent and control, rapport building, managing and responding to emotion, and offering appropriate longer term support. The researchers discuss their personal approaches and experiences (practical, methodological, ethical) during and after the fieldwork process. In the paper the authors highlight some of the challenges they faced and discuss how these were addressed and managed, sometimes differently, and not always resolved. They demonstrate the need for researchers to be aware of their “research footprint,” in particular the need to be reflexive and responsive to participants’ emotional well-being, and for funders and employers to also be sensitive to and mindful of the demands of social research, including impacts on researchers’ well-being.

Keywords: fieldwork practice, face-to-face interviews, participant well-being, researcher well-being, interview reciprocity, research footprint

Authors’ note:  We thank the 40 people who participated in interviews with us for the Mental Health and Employment study. Each one of them made a valuable contribution to project. We would also like to thank Simon Gilbody, Professor of Psychological Medicine and Health Services Research, for his advice and support for the project, and Anne Corden, Senior Research Fellow, for constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the research funding body (The Department for Work and Pensions).

Mitchell W & Irvine A (2008) I’m Okay, You’re Okay?: Reflections on the Well-Being and Ethical Requirements of Researchers and Research Participants in Conducting Qualitative Fieldwork Interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Methods December 2008 vol. 7 no. 4 31-44
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277172512_I%27m_Okay_You%27re_Okay_Reflections_on_the_Well-Being_and_Ethical_Requirements_of_Researchers_and_Research_Participants_in_Conducting… (accessed Feb 4, 2016).
Publisher (Open Access): http://ijq.sagepub.com/content/7/4/31.full#sec-1

0