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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesMethodology

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

What’s the Harm? The Coverage of Ethics and Harm Avoidance in Research Methods Textbooks (Papers: Shane Dixon and Linda Quirke | June 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on December 3, 2019
 

Abstract
Methods textbooks play a role in socializing a new generation of researchers about ethical research. How do undergraduate social research methods textbooks portray harm, its prevalence, and ways to mitigate harm to participants? We conducted a content analysis of ethics chapters in the 18 highest-selling undergraduate textbooks used in sociology research methods courses in the United States and Canada in 2013. We found that experiments are portrayed as the research design most likely to harm participants. Textbooks overwhelmingly referred to high-profile, well-known examples of harmful research. Chapters primarily characterize participants as at risk for psychological and physical harm. Textbooks engage in detailed discussions of how to avoid harm; informed consent figures prominently as an essential way to mitigate risk of harm. We conclude that textbooks promote a procedural rather than nuanced approach to ethics and that content in ethics chapters is out of step with scholarly research in research ethics.

Keywords
ethics, research methods, textbooks, harm, participants

Dixon, S., & Quirke, L. (2018). What’s the Harm? The Coverage of Ethics and Harm Avoidance in Research Methods Textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 46(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X17711230
Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0092055X17711230

Born Digital – The Expanding Universe of Research Content – Scholarly Kitchen (Judy Luther | November 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on November 18, 2019
 

Beginning with the launch of the Internet, enabling technologies have expanded the number of formats that are widely used. Images, audio, video, data, code, and other forms of digital content are common in the researcher’s workflow and have become a necessary part of scholarly communications. Meanwhile, scholarly publishing has remained predominantly page based and dependent on PDFs, though that may be about to change.

DOIs signal research content
DOIs have been associated with scholarly publishing since Crossref began providing connections between research articles in 1999. When Datacite was launched a decade later, they expanded to providing DOIs for datasets and other research objects. Then three years ago, Crossref released a schema for Preprints as the precursor to the published work. Amy Brand’s recent post in the Scholarly Kitchen noted that 87% of Crossref DOIs are assigned to journal articles and book chapters, with only 5.5% assigned to conferences. The remaining items are almost all text based works.

As a result, DOIs have primarily represented published works and data as supplemental material to the Version of Record. This signaled that research had been reviewed, curated, published, and preserved for future reference as part of the scholarly record. Given that library budgets funded these publications, preservation was an essential requirement as the digital content was no longer housed within each institution.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

The female problem: how male bias in medical trials ruined women’s health – The Guardian (Gabrielle Jackson | November 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on November 14, 2019
 

Centuries of female exclusion has meant women’s diseases are often missed, misdiagnosed or remain a total mystery

From the earliest days of medicine, women have been considered inferior versions of men. In On the Generation of Animals, the Greek philosopher Aristotle characterised a female as a mutilated male, and this belief has persisted in western medical culture.

The historical, and continued, exclusion of women from clinical trials is a significant problem that really hasn’t been addressed by drives by granting bodies.  Similar exclusion tends to be the experience of people whose first language isn’t English, people living with a disability and First Nation peoples. Researchers and research ethics review bodies can play an important role in addressing this major problem.

“For much of documented history, women have been excluded from medical and science knowledge production, so essentially we’ve ended up with a healthcare system, among other things in society, that has been made by men for men,” Dr Kate Young, a public health researcher at Monash University in Australia, tells me.
.

Young’s research has uncovered how doctors fill knowledge gaps with hysteria narratives. This is particularly prevalent when women keep returning to the doctor, stubbornly refusing to be saved.
.

“The historical hysteria discourse was most often endorsed when discussing ‘difficult’ women, referring to those for whom treatment was not helpful or who held a perception of their disease alternative to their clinician,” Young wrote in a research paper published in the journal Feminism & Psychology.

.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Data Management Expert Guide (Guidance: CESSDA | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on November 5, 2019
 

This guide is designed by European experts to help social science researchers make their research data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR).

You will be guided by different European experts who are – on a daily basis – busy ensuring long-term access to valuable social science datasets, available for discovery and reuse at one of the CESSDA social science data archives.

Target audience and mission
This guide is written for social science researchers who are in an early stage of practising research data management. With this guide, CESSDA wants to contribute to professionalism in data management and increase the value of research data.

Overview
If you follow the guide, you will travel through the research data lifecycle from planning, organising, documenting, processing, storing and protecting your data to sharing and publishing them. Taking the whole roundtrip will take you approximately 15 hours, however you can also hop on and off at any time.

CESSDA Training Working Group (2017 – 2018). CESSDA Data Management Expert Guide.
Bergen, Norway: CESSDA ERIC. Retrieved from https://www.cessda.eu/DMGuide

0