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)

500+ Resources – Part Two of Nominations of best resources0

Posted by Admin in on December 8, 2016
 

This second nomination of favourite resources is from Associate Professor Lisa Wynn, Department of Anthropology, Macquarie University. Next week we’re going to be sharing some more nominations of people’s nomination of favourite resources? Got your own favourite? Drop us a line to gary.allen@ahrecs.com with your suggestion.

Beall’s list of predatory publishers: Web site | Resource Library entry – As the AHRECs site notes, “the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research direct that the results of research should only be reported once…. This underlines the importance of the selection of a quality publisher/avenue to ensure the maximum impact for your work.” In other words, if you can only publish your data once, you need to make sure that you’re publishing in the right place! Unfortunately, I’ve seen younger scholars make naive decisions about publishers that have been disastrous for their careers. For example, one recent graduate from another university proudly told me that a publishing house had sought out him to publish his completely unrevised PhD thesis! Skeptical (because if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is), I checked on Beall’s list and found that it was one of those publishing houses that publish anything, without peer review, publishing on demand at extraordinarily high prices. The outcome is a book that few will ever purchase, a publisher that looks bad on his CV, and this naive student signed over the copyright to this publisher, so now he can’t publish the content of his rich PhD thesis anywhere else. Now I make a practice of warning all my PhD students to check the Beall’s list before they make any publishing decisions.

The University of New Hampshire’s 5 case studies in research ethics: Web site | Resource Library Entry –  Each is a short (~2 pages) summary of a famous recent case of research misconduct. These would be good to teach with; there’s enough ambiguity in each case to lend itself to lively debate, and they’re all real cases featured in news headlines, not hypothetical scenarios.

The In The News section features a lot of interesting links, including a thoughtful WIRED article by Zoltan Boka (web site | Resource Library entry) about Facebook’s attempt to institute its own in-house ethics committee to review research, after the backlash of negative publicity following revelations that Facebook had manipulated its news feed algorithms to study what would happen when people received more positive or negative news items — without getting consent from any of its “research participants” or even informing them that they were being manipulated and studied. As Boka points out, having an entirely in-house ethics committee that are all Facebook employees means its committee will never be impartial and is susceptible to pressures from above to approve research projects that benefit Facebook.
Hope

500+ Resources – Part One of Nominations of best resources0

Posted by Admin in on December 8, 2016
 

This week we hit the mark of 500 great resources in the Resource Library. Over the next few days we’re going to be sharing nominations of people’s nomination of favourite resources? Got your own favourite? Drop us a line to gary.allen@ahrecs.com with your suggestion.

Professor Mark Israel

Hudson M, Milne M, Reynolds P, Russell K and Smith B (2010) Te Ara Tika. Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members. Final Draft. Available at: http://www.hrc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Te%20Ara%20Tika%20Guidelines%20for%20Maori%20Research%20Ethics.pdf
AHRECS Resource Library entry

In 2010, Māori members of research ethics committees drafted Te Ara Tika, guidelines for Māori research ethics, for the Health Research Council of New Zealand (Hudson et al., 2010). Māori committee members are charged with responsibility both for acting as ethical reviewers and for acting as guardians and advocates (kaitiaki) for Māori ethical concerns, ethical issues, and interests.

Te Ara Tika calls for tikanga Māori (locally specific Māori protocols and practices) to encourage research that sustains relationships and preserves justice and equity. The authors argued this would be best (but not uniquely) achieved by research that is informed by kaupapa Māori which seeks ‘to restructure power relationships to the point where partners can be autonomous and interact from this position rather than from one of subordination or dominance’ (Bishop, 2008, p. 440). In Te Ara Tika, this is envisaged as research where Māori are significant participants, the research team is typically all Māori, Māori research methodologies are adopted where appropriate, and which produces Māori knowledge. Importantly, Te Ara Tika also considers how research that is not Māori-led might still be informed by ideas of respectful conduct, achieve tangible outcomes for Māori communities, and enable Māori communities to assume power in the research relationship and responsibility for the outcomes of a project.

While drafted with the needs of health and disability research ethics in mind, the framework could be relevant to all research in New Zealand. Sadly, Te Ara Tika has had limited impact there. The document has no formal standing with ethics committees or the Ministry of Health. One of the authors of Te Ara Tika recently described how the document has been marginalized by the HRC in NZ (Tolich and Smith, 2015), and how Māori interests have been reduced to a matter of culture by HDECs (the ‘cultural turn’).

Nevertheless, Te Ara Tika deserves to be taken seriously. It draws on and responds to indigenous values and interests in a way that is quite different from Values and Ethics or GERAIS in Australia and TCPS2 in Canada. Kaupapa Māori offers a well-articulated challenge to the universalist assumptions of much research ethics. It is elegantly constructed and written in a way that helps international and Pākehā readers engage with its ideas and concepts.

Bishop R (2008) Te Kotahitanga: Kaupapa Māori in Mainstream Classrooms. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS and Smith LT (eds) Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 439-458.

Hudson M, Milne M, Reynolds P, Russell K and Smith B (2010) Te Ara Tika. Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members. Final Draft. Available at: http://www.hrc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Te%20Ara%20Tika%20Guidelines%20for%20Maori%20Research%20Ethics.pdf

Tolich, M and Smith, B (2015) The Politicisation of Ethics Review in New Zealand. Auckland: Dunmore.

 

He Tangata Kei Tua Guidelines for Biobanking with Māori0

Posted by Admin in on December 6, 2016
 

Kei tua o te awe māpara he tangata kē, he mā?

Introduction

Māori ethical frameworks recognise that all research in New Zealand is of interest to Māori and outline community expectations of appropriate behavior in research to deliver the best outcomes for Māori. Research contributes to the broader development objectives of society and this endeavor is being supported by biobanking infrastructure. Ethics has a specific role in guiding key behaviours, processes and methodologies used in research. This document outlines a framework for addressing Māori ethical issues within the context of biobanking. It draws on a foundation of mātauranga (Indigenous knowledge) and tikanga Māori (Māori protocols and practices) and will be useful for researchers, ethics committee members and those who engage in consultation or advice about biobanking with Māori in local, regional, national or international settings.

Download this resource

On the Origins of Research Ethics: China and the West – Bioethics.net Blog (Craig Klugman, Ph.D July 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on December 4, 2016
 

When I was a graduate student, I was fortunate to be one of five students chosen by the China Medical Board to attend an international bioethics conference between the U.S. and China in Beijing. We listened to talks on the philosophical bases of ethics in each country and culture. The U.S. laid its philosophical history on the doorsteps of the ancient Greek traditions such as Plato and Aristotle as well as later European thinkers such as Kant, Mill, and Bentham. The Chinese delegates talked of Confucius and Lao Tzu. We toured a hospital and a medical school. I still have a black plastic plate with the image of the medical college drawn in a gold color that was a gift to us guests.

I was assigned to a break out session where both countries were supposed to talk about values of medical ethics in the hopes of crafting an international and intercultural code of medical ethics. As a graduate student I asked the too-wise-for-my-britches question, “How can we create an international code of ethics when we are only two countries?” I was quickly quieted as the chair, an illustrious scholar, said, “Privacy. We can agree that privacy is important, correct.” There was a lot of chatter and head nodding. Another American student sitting next to me, whispered in my ear, “I don’t know all of what they said in Chinese, but the last part was, ‘Don’t translate this for the Americans’.” The interpreter then said out loud, “Yes, we can agree to privacy.”

Two days later at the closing ceremony, a written document was placed before the head of each delegation. A list of agreed upon values and ideas was read to the audience. A pen was handed to each leader. The Chinese leader stopped and after a brief statement, the interpreter said, “We cannot sign this. We do not agree with it.” What had been lost in cultural translation was that in China, one does not contradict a guest and we were the guests.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0