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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesHuman research ethics

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Values and Ethics – Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research0

Posted by Admin in on May 28, 2015
 

The Values and Ethics Guidelines is an Australian national guideline for health research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and issues. The document was intended to be a reference for researchers and ethics reviewers. The document was issued by the NHMRC. The Values and Ethics Guidelines introduces and discusses the following principles:

  • Reciprocity
  • Respect
  • Equality
  • Responsibility
  • Survival and protection
  • Spirit and integrity

Even though the document has not been enacted adherence to the Values and Ethics Guidelines is at least notionally a condition of NHMRC funding. The annual human research ethics compliance report sent to institutions by the NHMRC queries whether the Values and Ethics Guidelines were utilised. It is expected that the outcome of a review of the document will be released later in 2015.

Keeping research on track: a guide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about health research ethics0

Posted by Admin in on May 28, 2015
 

The Keeping research on track document is resource produced for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and peoples about human research. It is a useful document to make accessible to potential participants and for researchers to consider when initially designing a research project. Like the Values and Ethics Guidelines (see here) it has been drafted for health research and while (for the most part) the ideas are transferable to other areas of human research it is unlikely to be helpful for humanities or creative/fine arts research.

Investigating Human Research Ethics in Practice: Project Report (ARC Project Report, Marilys Guillemin, et al 2008)0

Posted by Admin in on May 28, 2015
 

REPORT: Guillemin, Marilys & Human Research Ethics Committee & University of Melbourne. Centre for Health and Society & Australian Research Council (2008). Investigating human research ethics in practice : project report. University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population Health, Centre for Health and Society, Melbourne

“Investigating Human Research Ethics in Practice aimed to investigate how health researchers and members of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) understand research ethics, and how they make decisions about what constitutes ethical conduct in health research. A total of 83 participants were individually interviewed by the research team: 34 ethics committee members and 49 health researchers, from metropolitan and regional hospitals, universities, research institutes, government and non-government organisations across Victoria.

“The data from these interviews showed that HREC members overwhelmingly believe that they do an important job and generally are doing it well. HREC members put in many hours of effort and are committed to the task. Almost without exception, researchers interviewed supported the need for a system of formal ethical review of research. Most felt that ethics review provided them with institutional backing and validation for their research studies. Many researchers also felt that the process of ethics review improved the quality of their projects. However, a large number of researchers reported frustrations with the time taken to put in ethics applications and delays before receiving approval. Some researchers described particularly poor experiences with ethics committees which had soured their view of the whole process.

“Both researchers and HREC members described a number of different ways of thinking about ethics and making decisions about what counts as ethical practice in research. For each group, the different approaches were potentially complementary rather than competing. They ranged from use of the formal ethical principles set out in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) to everyday folk strategies of intuition and ‘putting oneself in another’s shoes’ (which we have termed ‘imaginative identification’). There was considerable commonality between researchers and HREC members in the strategies they described, though not total overlap.

“On the basis of the project fi ndings, a number of recommendations are made relating to: mechanisms to improve communication and mutual understanding between researchers and HRECs; expanded training for both researchers and HREC members; and a working party to address the excessive length of Plain Language Statement and Consent Forms, which both researchers and HREC members saw as a major problem in the current system”

Guidelines for the Ethical use of Digital Data in Human Research0

Posted by Admin in on May 28, 2015
 

Clark, K. Duckham, M. Guillemin, M. Hunter, A. McVernon, J. O’Keefe, C. Pitkin, C. Prawer, S. Sinnott, R. Warr, D. Waycott, J. (2015) Guidelines for the Ethical use of Digital Data in Human Research, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne.0.

“The guidelines presented here have been developed to assist researchers who are conducting, and ethics committee members who are assessing, research involving digital data. Digital data presents researchers and ethics committees with familiar and novel ethical issues. Accepted strategies for managing issues such as privacy and confidentiality, and informed consent, need rethinking. The qualities of digital data, including its mobility and replicability, present new kinds of ethical issues which emerge in relation to data governance, data security and data management”.

0