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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesGood practice

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

People want to be able to influence the risk – The Ethics Blog (Pär Segerdahl | May 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on June 16, 2019
 

We need to do research to know what people think is important in genetic risk information. What they prefer to know. But how do we find out? One way is to ask people to answer questionnaires.

One problem with questionnaires is that they ask one thing at a time. Do you prefer a hotel room with a sea view when you are on vacation? You probably answer yes. But do you prefer the sea view even if the room is above the disco, or costs 500 EUR per night? If you only ask one thing at a time, then it is difficult to know how different factors interact, how important they are relative to each other.

One way to get past this limitation is to ask people to choose between two alternatives, where the alternatives have several different attributes.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Thinking about ethics in Burma research (Papers: Lisa Brooten & Rosalie Metro | 2014)0

Posted by Admin in on May 28, 2019
 

Burma’s colonial past, its years under military dictatorship, its ongoing ethnic and religious conflicts, and the current shifts in the political landscape all present unique challenges for researchers seeking to behave ethically with their informants, their institutions, each other, and the public sphere. The recent upsurge of interest in Burma presents an opportunity for scholars who study the country to reflect on the ethical dilemmas they have confronted and to articulate how they have addressed them. It is our hope that this effort can help those who specialize in Burma to consider the norms and divergences that exist within our inter-disciplinary scholarly community, and can aid those new to Burma Studies in navigating their research in a more informed manner. In light of the need for such a conversation, The Journal of Burma Studies agreed to publish this special issue.

For some human research designs, (sub)disciplines and methodologies matter.  Contextual factors, privacy and risk, as well as potential vulnerabilities can be entirely different and a peril for unprepared.   This thought-provoking paper is a discussion about ethical research in  Burma. We have included links to four other items about research in dangerous contexts.

The inspiration for this issue came from a panel discussion Rose organized at the 2012 Burma Studies Conference in DeKalb, Illinois, USA. Elliott Prasse-Freeman and Patrick McCormick both presented earlier versions of the essays included here, and Rose described her difficulties with using consent forms in her ethnographic research with teachers on the Thai-Burma border (Metro 2014). The audience members, who represented a broad cross-section of the field, raised a number of important issues that bear further exploration, and several tensions emerged that are echoed in these pages. In particular, a debate on the nature of objectivity between a senior and a mid-career scholar, both anthropologists, pointed to a generational paradigm shift toward an engagement with [End Page 1] the inevitably political nature of Burma Studies. Another exchange, between McCormick, a US researcher based in Burma, and a Burmese person based in the US, highlighted what McCormick calls the “hierarchies of interpretation” in which the academic credentials and positionality of local and international scholars privilege some epistemologies over others. Additionally, several scholars brought up concerns with the consequences of conducting and publishing their research, whether that meant jeopardizing local contacts or having their work appropriated to ends they did not support. These discussions were thought provoking, despite the brevity, and when we found ourselves talking after the conference about the need for more discussion, we decided to continue the conversation in these pages
.

Brooten, L. and Metro, R., (2014). Thinking about ethics in Burma research. Journal of Burma Studies, 18(1), pp.1-22.
Publisher: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/545023/pdf

The ethics of New Development Economics: is the Experimental Approach to Development Economics morally wrong? (Papers: Stéphane J. Baele)0

Posted by Admin in on May 21, 2019
 

Abstract:
The 2000s have witnessed the arrival and growing popularity of randomized controlled experiments (RCTs) in Development Economics. Whilst this new way of conducting research on development has unfolded important insights, the ethical challenge it provokes has not yet been systematically examined. The present article aims at filling this gap by providing the first ad hoc discussion of the moral issues that accompany the use of RCTs in Development Economics. Claiming that this new research agenda needs its own, specific set of ethical guidelines, we expose the six ethical problems that these experiments potentially provoke and that should therefore be carefully assessed by ethics committees before an RCT is launched and by scholarly journals before its results are published.

Keywords:
Development Economics, ethics, RCTs, experiments

Baele, Stéphane J. (2013) ‘The ethics of New Development Economics: is the Experimental Approach to Development Economics morally wrong?’, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, VII:1
Publisher (Open Access): https://jpe.ro/?id=revista&p=291&cuprins=vizibil

Friday afternoon’s funny – How safe is your data?0

Posted by Admin in on May 17, 2019
 

Cartoon by Don Mayne www.researchcartoons.com

Like most of Don’s work, this chuckle should prompt an important reflection. Do you have a robust plan for your research data?  Does it include:

  1. Data backup and disaster recovery?
  2. (If it is personally identified, sensitive, commercially valuable or otherwise risky) Involve storing the data in a coded form separate from the code key.
  3. Access control/privileges
  4. Discussion about
    1. Data transport
    2. Ethics
    3. Privacy
    4. GDPR
    5. Ownership and use
  5. Metadata
  6. A plan with regard to retention and disposal

0