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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPsychology

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Visual Methodologies: Special research ethics edition (Papers)0

Posted by Admin in on April 18, 2016
 

“This special issue on ethical issues in visual research arose from our collective observation that there is an urgent need for researchers to share and reflect upon stories about the ethical challenges they are facing in their research, including how they have navigated the formal procedural ethics review process and how they have identified and responded to ethical challenges in their research practice. Our approach in this special issue has been to call for tales from the field that raise new questions and highlight concerns within the context of real and ongoing research rather than attempt to derive solutions to ethical problems in an abstract or decontextualized way. The overall collection is therefore one that highlights the importance of good descriptive self-reflexive accounts of ethical and methodological issues, especially in terms of what is useful for other visual researchers and also for members of research ethics boards or committees (REB/REC).”

Click here to access this edition.

In this edition:

Editorial: Visual methods and ethics: Stories from the field
Susan M. Cox, Marilys Guillemin, Jenny Waycott, Deborah Warr
1-3

Re/formulating Ethical Issues for Visual Research Methods
Jenny Waycott, Marilys Guillemin, Deborah Joy Warr, Susan Cox, Sarah Drew, Catherine Howell
4-15

Ethical issues in the use of video observations with people with advanced dementia and their caregivers in nursing home environments
Gloria Puurveen, Alison Phinney, Susan Cox, Barbara Purvest
16-26

Adding the agentic capacities of visual materials to visual research ethics
Kim McLeod, Marilys Guillemin
27-42

Visual Embodiment of Psychosis: Ethical Concerns in Performing Difficult Experiences
Katherine Mary Boydell, Carmela Solimine, Siona Siona
43-52

Beneficence and contemporary art: when aesthetic judgment meets ethical judgment
Barbara Ruth Bolt
53-66

Making the visual invisible: exploring creative forms of dissemination that respect anonymity but retain impact
Dawn Mannay
67-76

Poor places, powerful people? Co-producing cultural counter-representations of place.
Ellie Byrne, Eva Elliott, Gareth Williams
77-85

Digital Ethnographic Techniques in Domestic Spaces: Notes on Methods and Ethics
Bjorn Nansen, Jenny Kennedy, Michael Arnold, Martin Gibbs, Rowan Wilken
86-97

Digital storytelling, image-making and self-representation: Building digital literacy as an ethical response for supporting Aboriginal young peoples’ digital identities
Fran Edmonds, Michelle Evans, Scott McQuire, Richard Chenhall

Big Data, Little Individual: Considering the Human Side of Big Data (Michael N. Karim et al 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on April 5, 2016
 

Abstract: Guzzo, Fink, King, Tonidandel, and Landis (2015) provide a clear overview of the implications of conducting research using big data. One element we believe was overlooked, however, was an individual-level perspective on big data; that is, what impact does this sort of data collection have on the individuals being studied? As psychologists, the ethics and impact of big data collection from workers should be at the forefront of our minds. In this reply, we use years of research on electronic monitoring and tracking to provide evidence that an individual-level perspective is an essential part of the discussion surrounding industrial–organizational psychology and big data. Specifically, we examine electronic performance monitoring (EPM) literature to identify how the widespread, pervasive collection of employee data affects employees’ attitudes and behaviors.

Karim M N, Willford J C and Behrend T S (2015). Big Data, Little Individual: Considering the Human Side of Big Data. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(04), pp 527-533. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.78.
Publisher: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract…
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289129002_Big_Data_Little_Individual_Considering…

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989: study (Papers: Marc Hauser et al 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on January 30, 2016
 

“Psychology has been home to some of the most infamous cases of fraud in recent years, and while it’s just a few bad apples who are spoiling the bunch, the field itself has seen an overall increase in retractions, according to a new paper by Jürgen Margraf appearing in Psychologische Rundschau and titled “Zur Lage der Psychologie.”

That increase, Margraf found, is not entirely due to its most well-known fraudsters.”

Hauser M, Smeesters D, Stapel D (2015) Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989: study. Retraction Watch, 5 March. Available at: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/05/psychology-retractions-have-quadrupled-since-1989-study/ (accessed 31 January 2016).

Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee – Version 2 (Papers: Markam and Buchanan 2012)0

Posted by Admin in on January 10, 2016
 

“INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The work represented in this document emerges from theoretical, empirical, and field research conducted by members of the Association of Internet Researchers, including members of the AoIR Ethics Working Group.

The first version of the AoIR Ethical Decision-Making document was released in 2002, after two years of international and cross-disciplinary collaboration. The document and its guidelines emerged from a series of extensive dialogues among experienced researchers facing and resolving ethical issues in internet research, philosophers, and other members of AoIR’s international, interdisciplinary community. The intention was to develop guidelines from the bottom up — i.e., out of the day-to-day practices of researchers in a wide range of disciplines, countries and contexts, in contrast to a more usual top-down approach that tries to provide a universal set of norms, principles, practices, and regulations. This approach was crucial because the enterprise of internet research is expansive — that is, globally informed — but also situated in innumerable locales. The 2002 document has subsequently received much use, and has been cited and used in a wide range of publications by a diverse number of disciplines. The AoIR Guidelines document has also been used by research ethics boards (REBs) and institutional review boards (IRBs) when making decisions about internet research-based protocols.1

Purpose and Audience
While the first AoIR document enjoyed extensive use, much has changed in the field of Internet Studies since 2002. The scope and contexts of internet research have been dramatically expanded through the continuing global diffusion of the internet into nearly every country in the world, as
facilitated through a growing array of devices (including game consoles, internet-enabled phones and other mobile devices) and ever-increasing bandwidth; rapidly expanding suites of new communication applications; and the increasingly seamless interweaving of online and offline activities and experiences. Alongside these developments, the literature of internet research ethics has grown considerably, providing us with a far more extensive range of theoretical resources and practical examples to help recognize and guide ethical reflection.”

Markham A and Buchanan E (2012) Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Available at: http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf (accessed 23 December 2013)

(Additional reading list item from the updated Booklet 37 of the Griffith University Research Ethics Manual. Perpetual licences are available for use by all researchers within an institution. Institutions have used the GUREM as the basis for producing their own research ethics manual, as a professional development resource and a teaching and learning materials for HDR candidates.)

0