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

ResourcesPrivacy

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

How We Found Sources for Our Research Misconduct Story — And How You Can Help Us Find More – ProPublica Illinois (Jodi S. Cohen | April 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on May 10, 2018
 

Privacy rules were an obstacle to finding participants in Dr Mani Pavuluri’s lithium studies, but we got around them.

This is a salutary story, not only in terms of modifying a project in the way described in the story (going from 13-16 year old kids to children around 10 or younger), but also the degree that social media can enable the identification of research participants whose identities were supposedly protected

This story was first published in ProPublica Illinois’ weekly newsletter. Sign up for that here.

A story we published yesterday revealed how the University of Illinois at Chicago recently had to repay the federal government $3.1 million after the National Institute of Mental Health determined one of the school’s star faculty members violated grant protocols — and put vulnerable kids at risk.

UIC child psychiatrist Mani Pavuluri had received the grant funds from NIMH to study how the powerful drug lithium affects the brain functions of adolescents with bipolar disorder. But she violated several guidelines, including enrolling children younger than 10 in the trial though it was supposed to only include 13- to 16-year-olds.

UIC was at fault, too. It failed to properly oversee her work, according to NIMH.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Research, Ethics And Risk In The Authoritarian Field (Books: Marlies Glasius, et al | 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on May 6, 2018
 

Abstract
In this introduction to Research, Ethics and Risk in the Authoritarian Field, we explain why and how we wrote this book, who we are, what the ‘authoritarian field’ means for us, and who may find this book useful. By recording our joint experiences in very different authori- tarian contexts systematically and succinctly, comparing and contrasting them, and drawing lessons, we aim to give other researchers a framework, so they will not need to start from scratch as we did. It is not the absence of free and fair elections, or repression, that most prominently affects our fieldwork in authoritarian contexts, but the arbitrariness of authoritarian rule, and the uncertainty it results in for us and the people in our fieldwork environment.

Keywords
Authoritarianism, Field research, Reflection, Uncertainty, Qualitative research, Fieldwork methods

Glasius, M., de Lange, M. Bartman, J. Dalmasso, E. Lv, A. Sordi, A.D. Michaelsen, M. Ruijgrok, K.(2017). Research, Ethics and Risk in the Authoritarian Field, Springer International Publishing
Publisher (Open Access): https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-68966-1.pdf

Contents

1 Introduction
Why This Book
Who We Are
What Is the Authoritarian Field?
How We Experience Authoritarianism
Beyond ‘Westerners’ and ‘Locals’
How We Wrote This Book
Who This Book Is For
References

2 Entering the Field
Ethics Procedures
Gaining Entry: Permits and Visas
Constrained Choices
Not So Dangerous
And Yet It Can Be Dangerous
Assessing Risk in Advance
Going the Anthropologist Way
Encountering the Security Apparatus
Data Security Trade-Offs
Chapter Conclusion: Planning Ahead and Accepting Risk
References

3 Learning the Red Lines
Hard Red Lines
Fluid Lines
Depoliticizing the Research
Wording
Getting Locals to Vet Your Wording
Behaviors
Shifting Red Lines—Closures
Shifting Red Lines—Openings
Chapter Conclusion: Navigating the Red Lines
References

4 Building and Maintaining Relations in the Field
Building Connections
Local Collaborators
Refusals
Testing the Waters
Work with What You Have
Where to Meet
Triangulation, Not Confrontation
Sensitive Information
Being Manipulated
Doing Things in Return
Chapter Conclusion: Patience, Trust, and Recognition
References

5 Mental Impact
Targeted Surveillance
Stress, Fear, and Paranoia
Betrayal and Disenchantment
Hard Stories
The Field Stays with Us
Attending to and Coping with Mental Impact
Pressure to Get Results
Positive Mental Impact
Chapter Conclusion: Talk About It
Reference

6 Writing It Up
The Call for Transparency
Interviews with ‘Ordinary People’
Interviews with ‘Expert Informants’
Interviews with ‘Spokespersons’
Protective Practices
Off-the-Record Information
Anonymity vs. Transparency
Transparency About Our Practices, Not Our Respondents
A Culture of Controlled Sharing
Archiving Our Transcripts
Writing, Dissemination, and Future Access
Chapter Conclusion: Shifting the Transparency Debate
References

Dos and Don’ts in the Authoritarian Field

Evolving friendships and shifting ethical dilemmas: Fieldworkers’ experiences in a short term community based study in Kenya (Papers: Dorcas M. Kamuya, et al | 2013)0

Posted by Admin in on April 29, 2018
 

Abstract

This open access paper is a great read for researchers planning, or research ethics reviewers considering, projects that will involve local field workers.

Fieldworkers (FWs) are community members employed by research teams to support access to participants, address language barriers, and advise on culturally appropriate research conduct. The critical role that FWs play in studies, and the range of practical and ethical dilemmas associated with their involvement, is increasingly recognised. In this paper, we draw on qualitative observation and interview data collected alongside a six month basic science study which involved a team of FWs regularly visiting 47 participating households in their homes. The qualitative study documented how relationships between field workers and research participants were initiated, developed and evolved over the course of the study, the shifting dilemmas FWs faced and how they handled them. Even in this one case study, we see how the complex and evolving relationships between fieldworkers and study participants had important implications for consent processes, access to benefits and mutual understanding and trust. While the precise issues that FWs face are likely to depend on the type of research and the context in which that research is being conducted, we argue that appropriate support for field workers is a key requirement to strengthen ethical research practice and for the long term sustainability of research programmes.

Kamuya, D., Theobald, S.J., Munywoki, P.K., Koech, D., Geissler, W.P. and Molyneux, S.C. (2013) Evolving friendships and shifting ethical dilemmas: Fieldworkers’ experiences in a short term community based study in Kenya. Developing World Bioethics 13(1): 1-9.
Publisher (Open Access): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dewb.12009

Cambridge University rejected Facebook study over ‘deceptive’ privacy standards – The Guardian (Matthew Weaver | April 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on April 25, 2018
 

Exclusive: panel told researcher Aleksandr Kogan that Facebook’s approach fell ‘far below ethical expectations’

A Cambridge University ethics panel rejected research by the academic at the centre of the Facebook data harvesting scandal over the social network’s “deceptive” approach to its users privacy, newly released documents reveal.

Perhaps, like us, you’ve been wondering what happened with the research ethics review of the initial data collection by Kogan (who is a researcher based at a UK university). That rumination may have deepened given Mark Zuckerberg’s reported testimony to the US Congress committee. But this latest revelation turns the story in a surprising direction. The work was in fact denied ethics approval by the Cambridge research ethics committee!

A 2015 proposal by Aleksandr Kogan, a member of the university’s psychology department, involved the personal data from 250,000 Facebook users and their 54 million friends that he had already gleaned via a personality quiz app in a commercial project funded by SCL, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica.

Separately, Kogan proposed an academic investigation on how Facebook likes are linked to “personality traits, socioeconomic status and physical environments”, according to an ethics application about the project released to the Guardian in response to a freedom of information request.
.
The documents shed new light on suggestions from the Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, that the university’s controls on research did not meet Facebook’s own standards. In testimony to the US Congress earlier this month, Zuckerberg said he was concerned over Cambridge’s approach, telling a hearing: “What we do need to understand is whether there is something bad going on at Cambridge University overall, that will require a stronger action from us.”
.

Read the rest of this news story

0