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

ResourcesHuman research ethics

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Creator Of The Stanford Prison Experiment Looks Back On Its Disturbing Outcome 44 Years Later – Huffpost Live (Ryan Buxton 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on July 16, 2015
 

(Item includes a 31:59 video)
“Back in 1971, Dr. Philip Zimbardo conducted the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, in which he put young students in a basement-turned-prison and assigned them roles as either prisoners or guards. The plan was to study the way the dynamic of authority would affect their behavior over a period of two weeks. The experiment produced such psychological abuse and degredation of the “prisoners” that Zimbardo called it off after six days.

The experiment hits the big screen on July 17 with a new film, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” which dramatizes the procedure’s quick devolution into chaos and has reopened the conversation regarding what Zimbardo’s research tells us about human nature and the power of control.

HuffPost Live’s Alyona Minkovski spoke with Zimbardo on Tuesday to look back on his unforgettable work. In the video above, watch Zimbardo discuss his decision-making during the experiment and what’s happened to his subjects since they left his mock prison 44 years ago.”

Also see:
What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm? (Martin Tolich 2014)

What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm? (Martin Tolich 2014)0

Posted by Admin in on July 16, 2015
 

“The first objective of this article is to demonstrate that ethics committee members can learn a great deal from a forensic analysis of two classic psychology studies: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study and Milgram’s Obedience Study. Rather than using hindsight to retrospectively eradicate the harm in these studies, the article uses a prospective minimization of harm technique. Milgram attempted to be ethical by trying to protect his subjects through debriefing and a follow-up survey. He could have done more, however, by carrying out what ethics committees routinely insist on today for those researching sensitive topics. The establishment of counselling supports to identify harm to participants would have minimized additional harm. Were these in place, or in Zimbardo’s case had the Stanford Ethics Committee properly identified Zimbardo’s conflict of interest – he was both a principal investigator and the prison warden – how much harm could have been minimized? The second aim is to examine how some qualitative authors routinely demonize these classic studies. It might appear that there are too few cases of unethical qualitative research to justify such an examination; however, this article identifies a number of recent examples of ethically dubious qualitative research. This would suggest that qualitative research should examine its own ethics before poaching from psychology.”

Tolich, M. (2014). What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm?. Research Ethics, 1747016114523771.  http://rea.sagepub.com/content/10/2/86

Also see:
Creator Of The Stanford Prison Experiment Looks Back On Its Disturbing Outcome 44 Years Later – Huffpost Live (Ryan Buxton 2015)

AHRECS Summary Report and Recommendations to the OLT0

Posted by Admin in on July 7, 2015
 

In 2014 AHRECS was engaged by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) to produce a report with regard to the fact an unsatisfactory number of grant and fellowship recipients had reported delays and problems with the progress of their work because of ethical review difficulties. The 47 page internal report suggested that there were a number of contributing factors to this situation and recommended a number of strategies to address these issues. AHRECS produced a public summary of the report which has been posted on the OLT web site and has been included in the AHRECS Resources Library.

AHRECS is currently working on six ressources booklets about key ethics issues for scholarship of learning and teaching research – a copy of which will also appear in the library.

This resource may be cited as:
Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services, (2015). AHRECS Summary Report and Recommendations to the OLT – Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services. [online] Available at: https://ahrecs.com/resources/ahrecs-summary-report-and-recommendations-to-the-olt [Accessed 8 Jul. 2015].

Yes, There Are Inaccuracies in Alice Goffman’s On the Run. She Put Them There. On Purpose – Slate (Leon Neyfakh 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on June 20, 2015
 

UPDATED: 24 Jun 2015

“Alice Goffman’s heralded book about inner-city life has come under fire for inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Is the author to blame—or does the fault lie with her field?” Alternatively is it a consequence of the requirement of IRBs/a necessary protection for participants?

Slate Magazine,. (2015). Yes, There Are Inaccuracies in Alice Goffman’s On the Run. She Put Them There. On Purpose. Retrieved 20 June 2015, from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/06/alice_goffman…

Also see…
The Internet Accused Alice Goffman of Faking Details In Her Study of a Black Neighborhood. I Went to Philadelphia to Check
By Jesse Singal
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06/i-fact-checked-alice-goffman-with-her-subjects.html

0