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)

(UK) ‘Unethical not to’ submit Brexit interviews to MPs, says academic – THE (John Morgan | April 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on May 20, 2018
 

Emma Briant defends actions over exchanges with key figures from Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica parent

An academic who submitted to a UK parliamentary inquiry interviews with key figures from Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica’s parent company – raising questions about how voters were targeted in the European Union referendum – says that it would have been “unethical” not to do so.

This instalment in the frankly alarming saga about Cambridge Analytica raises an important question, especially for social scientists: How to approach confidentiality when we believe there is a higher moral imperative to disclose to an authority? We have included links to a few related items.

Emma Briant, senior lecturer in journalism at the University of Essex, submitted essays and audio files of interviews to the UK’s Electoral Commission, Information Commissioner’s Office and Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee. The DCMS committee published Dr Briant’s material on 16 April as part of its inquiry into “fake news”.
.
Dr Briant has since faced suggestions that her decision to hand over the material raises questions about research ethics, particularly in the context of the Economic and Social Research Council’s principles of ethical research, given that those interviewed agreed to contribute to an academic research project.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

What factors do scientists perceive as promoting or hindering scientific data reuse? – LSE Impact Blog (Renata Gonçalves Curty, et al | March 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on May 17, 2018
 

Increased calls for data sharing have formed part of many governments’ agendas to boost innovation and scientific development. Data openness for reuse also resonates with the recognised need for more transparent, reproducible science. But what are scientists’ perceptions about data reuse? Renata Gonçalves Curty, Kevin Crowston, Alison Specht, Bruce W. Grant and Elizabeth D. Dalton make use of existing survey data to analyse the attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data reuse. Perceived efficiency, efficacy, and trustworthiness are key; as is whether scientists believe data reuse is beneficial for scientific development, or perceive certain pressures contrary to the reuse of data. Looking ahead, synthesis centres can be important for supporting data-driven interdisciplinary collaborations, and leveraging new scientific discoveries based on pre-existing data.

There can be real societal benefits from data sharing, which is among the reasons why many research funding bodies require (or at least encourage) funded researchers to share their data. But it is not without its research ethics and research integrity challenges. The idea of sharing can be a source of disquiet for some researchers. Understanding why, and supporting practice in this area would increase the amount of data that is shared. We have gathered here a list of resource items about data sharing.

“If I have seen further, it was by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” This quote, attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, expresses the cumulative and synergistic nature of the growth of science. Intellectual progress and major scientific achievements are built upon the contributions of previous thinkers and discoveries. Thus the scientific enterprise thrives upon openness and collaboration.
.
The unrestricted sharing of research outputs is increasingly seen as critical for scientific progress. The calls for data sharing in particular, aligned with investment in infrastructures for housing research data, have been part of many governments’ agendas to boost innovation and scientific development, while optimising resources. The ability of researchers to access and build upon previous knowledge has thus evolved from elementary access to final published manuscripts and research reports, to the capability of accessing different outputs produced throughout the research lifecycle, including digital data files.
.
There have been a number of promising developments in funding bodies’ policies promoting and requesting compliance with data sharing requirements to ensure preservation and access to scientific data for further reuse. In the US, the Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE), supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is committed to broadening education on data-related issues (e.g. data documentation, data citation), as well as to provide standards/guidelines and sustainable cyberinfrastructure to secure openness, persistence, robustness, findability, and accessibility to environmental science data

Read the rest of this discussion piece

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

0