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


Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(Australia) Outrage over minister cancelling research grants – University World News (Geoff Maslen | October 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on October 30, 2018

Revelations that a former federal education minister interfered in a competitive research grants process and cancelled 11 humanities and social sciences projects, costed at more than AU$4 million (US$2.8 million), has generated outrage across Australia’s higher education sector.

The decision by former education minister Simon Birmingham last year and early this year to override recommendations from the Australian Research Council (ARC) was belatedly revealed in federal parliament on Thursday night.

ARC officials were being questioned during a Senate hearing and explained how Birmingham had stepped in to reject the council’s decision that 11 of the research projects be funded.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities (Papers: Tennille L. Marley | 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on September 16, 2018

American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people.

Keywords Indigenous data sovereignty, American Indian and Alaska Native, Indigenous people, qualitative data

Marley, T. L. “Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities.” American Behavioral Scientist 0(0): 0002764218799130.

The Ethical Implications of HCI’s Turn to the Cultural (Papers: Nick Tandavanitj et al)0

Posted by Admin in on March 13, 2016

Abstract: We explore the ethical implications of HCI’s turn to the ‘cultural’. This is motivated by an awareness of how cultural applications, in our case interactive performances, raise ethical issues that may challenge established research ethics processes. We review research ethics, HCI’s engagement with ethics and the ethics of theatrical performance. Following an approach grounded in Responsible Research Innovation, we present the findings from a workshop in which artists, curators, commissioners and researchers explored ethical challenges revealed by four case studies. We identify six ethical challenges for HCI’s engagement with cultural applications: transgression, boundaries, consent, withdrawal, data and integrity. We discuss two broader implications of these: managing tensions between multiple overlapping ethical frames; and the importance of managing ethical challenges during and after an experience as well as beforehand. Finally, we discuss how our findings extend previous discussions of Value Sensitive Design in HCI. Categories and Subject

Descriptors: H500 [Human-centred computing]: Human Computer Interaction – HCI Theory, Concepts and Models

Additional Key Words and Phrases: Art, Performance; Ethics; Uncomfortable Interactions; Discomfort; Consent; Withdrawal; Boundaries; Transgression; Integrity; Blast Theory; Active Ingredient; Urban Angel; Thrill Laboratory; Research in the Wild

Benford S, Greenhalgh C, Anderson B, Jacobs R, Golembewski M, Jirotka M, Carsten Stahl B, Timmermans J, Giannachi G and Adams M (2015) The Ethical Implications of HCI’s Turn to the Cultural. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, TOCHI 22(5). 24. DOI: 10.1145/2775107

Protocols for working with Indigenous artists0

Posted by Admin in on May 29, 2015

Protocols produced by the Australia Council for the Arts for the commissioning of music, writing, visual arts, media arts and performing arts. In December 2014 the Australian Research Council recommended that all funded institutions adhere to theses protocols. The protocols discuss a range of ethical considerations, such as:

  1. engaging artists;
  2. adapting work;
  3. traditional motifs;
  4. representation of deceased people;
  5. secret and sacred materials;
  6. moral rights;
  7. Indigenous control;
  8. attribution and copyright;
  9. respect and proper returns.

The ARC also stated that “the Protocols may also have much broader application, and, as applicable, advises that any researchers accessing, using or reproducing music, literature, arts, images or ceremonies of Indigenous peoples, or Indigenous cultural materials conduct their research in accordance with these protocols.”