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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesNew Zealand

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Fudged research results erode people’s trust in experts – The Conversation (Gavin Moodie | July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 11, 2019
 

Reports of research misconduct have been prominent recently and probably reflect wider problems of relying on dated integrity protections.

The recent reports are from Retraction Watch, which is a blog that reports on the withdrawal of articles by academic journals. The site’s database reports that journals have withdrawn a total of 247 papers with an Australian author going back to the 1980s.

This compares with 324 papers withdrawn with Canadian authors, 582 from the UK and 24 from New Zealand. Australian retractions are 1.2% of all retractions reported on the site, a fraction of Australia’s 4% share of all research publications.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Censorship in a China Studies Journal – Inside Higher Ed (Elizabeth Redden | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on May 4, 2019
 

Scholars say they thought a journal was run on Western standards of free expression, but they found Chinese government control instead.

Yet another account of censorship involving a China studies journal has come to light. And the scholars involved say this case involves an insidious “blurring of boundaries” where they were misled into thinking Western publishing standards would apply when in fact the journal in question was subject to Chinese government censorship.

Lorraine Wong and Jacob Edmond, both professors at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, have written an account of the censorship they encountered when they edited a planned special issue of the journal Frontiers of Literary Studies in China. The journal is published by the Netherlands-based publishing company Brill in association with the China-based Higher Education Press, an entity that describes itself on its website (in Chinese) as affiliated with China’s Ministry of Education. The journal’s editorial board lists scholars from major American and international universities — including Cornell University, Duke University, Harvard University, the University of California, Davis, and the University of Washington — and its editor in chief is based at New York University. The journal’s editorial office is located in Beijing.

Wong and Edmond wrote that the association with Brill, along with the involvement of leading scholars in the field on the editorial board, led them to mistakenly assume the publication standards would be akin to those of other journals in the field published in the U.S. What they found, however, was that the affiliation with the Higher Education Press and the location of the editorial office in Beijing means “the journal is subject to the full range of Chinese government censorship.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Ethical Guidelines for Observational Studies0

Posted by Admin in on October 11, 2018
 

Foreword to the 2012 edition
These Guidelines were first released in 2006; the current document is a revision. The Health Committee’s inquiry into improving New Zealand’s environment to support innovation through clinical trials (June 2011) resulted in significant changes to the ethics review process, as reflected in the revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Health and Disability Ethics Committees.

This 2012 revision aims to provide consistency with the SOPs. These Guidelines have been updated to remove process guidance, and ensure that policy previously included in the Operational Standard for Ethics Committees is now addressed by these Guidelines. The revision did not fundamentally change the existing ethical standards and principles set out in these Guidelines.

As previously, the Guidelines are directed primarily to investigators, who have the main ethical responsibility for good study conduct. But the Guidelines also continue to be directed to others with a role in health and disability research ethics – particularly the ethics committees that review studies against established ethical standards. The key objectives of developing national ethical guidelines are to…

Contents

Foreword to the 2012 edition iii
Foreword to the 2006 edition iv

1 Introduction 1

2 Guidelines scope and definitions 3
Types of observational research 3
Types of audit or related activity 4

3 Ethics of observational studies 6
Worth of observational studies 6
Ethical requirements of observational studies 6

4 Underlying ethical considerations 8
Respect for people 8
Māori and ethical considerations 8
Justice 9
Beneficence and non-maleficence 9
Integrity 10
Diversity 10
Conflict of interest 10

5 Design of study and protocol 11
Study question 11
Study design 11
Scientifically sound 11
Skills and resources 12
Protocol 12

6 Collecting health information 13
Identifiability of health information 13
Collection of health information directly from individuals 14
Collection of health information from a third party 18

7 Use of information 20

8 Confidentiality of data 21
General considerations 21
Record linkage 22

9 When to reveal information obtained by observational studies 23

10 Communicating study results 24

11 Features of observational studies that pose more than minimal risk 25

12 Additional points 27
Bibliography 28

Appendix:
Joint Health Research Council and NEAC guidance on features of robust peer review for assessing the scientific validity of research 30

Access the guidelines

Practical, Epistemological, and Ethical Challenges of Participatory Action Research: A Cross-Disciplinary Review of the Literature (Papers: Danielle Lake and Joel Wendland | 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on October 9, 2018
 

Abstract
This article extends recent discussions on the practical, epistemological, and ethical challenges of participatory action research (PAR) for community-engaged scholars through a cross-disciplinary literature review. It focuses on how practitioners across fields define power, engage with conventional research approval processes, and manage risk. The review demonstrates that PAR can be a valuable research approach for community-engaged scholars, but problematic practices and disparities must be addressed. For instance, although PAR practitioners consistently articulate a commitment to empowering the community and shifting structures of oppression, contradictions around how to define and respond to power, engage with standard IRB practices, and cope with high levels of risk are prevalent. We conclude by offering a set of recommendations, highlighting the need for more transparent and self-reflexive methods; transdisciplinary practices; metrics designed to assess risk, inclusion, and power-sharing; ongoing dialogues across disciplinary and institutional divides; and inclusive authorship and open-access publishing practices.

Keywords: participatory action research, ethical challenges, interdisciplinarity, institutional

LAKE, Danielle; WENDLAND, Joel. Practical, Epistemological, and Ethical Challenges of Participatory Action Research: A Cross-Disciplinary Review of the Literature. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, [S.l.], v. 22, n. 3, p. 11-42, sep. 2018. ISSN 2164-8212. Available at: http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/2093>.

0