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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch results

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

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…

What happens before a retraction? A behind-the-scenes look from COPE – Interview by Retraction Watch (2016)0

Posted by Admin in on March 23, 2016
 

“Ever wonder how editors figure out whether a paper should be corrected, retracted, or left as-is? For a window into that crucial decision-making process, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishes a number of anonymized cases per year, in which they weigh in on a dilemma faced by a journal editor. The organization has weighed in on more than 500 such situations since 1997. We spoke with Charon Pierson, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the Secretary of the Trustee Board and Council at COPE to find out more information about these cases – including the one that affected her most.”

Click here to read the full interview

The Ethics Trapeze (Papers: Will C. van den Hoonaard 2006)0

Posted by Admin in on March 22, 2016
 

Abstract: This article constitutes the introduction to a collection of essays in volume 4 of JAE, representing an extremely diverse collection of pieces written by authors from equally diverse backgrounds with the purpose of sharing the theoretical and practical issues related to research-ethics, or on ethics more generally. All of the articles are fresh contributions to the research-ethics review debate. The 17 authors of the 12 articles come from the United States, South Africa, and Canada. Their disciplinary or research backgrounds include Aboriginal literatures, English literature, English-as-a Second-Language pedagogy, French literature, history, language and literacy, liberal arts, and linguistics – all fields in the cluster of the humanities. The volume also has contributions from social work, sociology, and speech pathology. The world of research-ethics review has become so pervasive that it invades all areas of research: it does not respect disciplinary boundaries. The articles in this special volume represent, in short, a microscope of the research world.

Key words: ethics in research humanities and ethics research-ethics review

van den Hoonaard, Will C (2006) The Ethics Trapeze. Journal of Academic Ethics. 4(1) pp 1-10
Publisher: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10805-006-9026-0

Consent and confidentiality in the light of recent demands for data sharing (Papers: Garrath Williams and Iris Pigeot )0

Posted by Admin in on March 20, 2016
 

Abstract: Many attempts have been made to formalize ethical requirements for research. Among the most prominent mechanisms are informed consent requirements and data protection regimes. These mechanisms, however, sometimes appear as obstacles to research. In this opinion paper, we critically discuss conventional approaches to research ethics that emphasize consent and data protection. Several recent debates have highlighted other important ethical issues and underlined the need for greater openness in order to uphold the integrity of health-related research. Some of these measures, such as the sharing of individual-level data, pose problems for standard understandings of consent and privacy. Here, we argue that these interpretations tend to be overdemanding: They do not really protect research subjects and they hinder the research process. Accordingly, we suggest another way of framing these requirements. Individual consent must be situated alongside the wider distribution of knowledge created when the actions, commitments, and procedures of researchers and their institutions are opened to scrutiny. And instead of simply emphasizing privacy or data protection, we should understand confidentiality as a principle that facilitates the sharing of information while upholding important safeguards. Consent and confidentiality belong to a broader set of safeguards and procedures to uphold the integrity of the research process.

Keywords: Data protection; Ethical review; Informed consent; Privacy; Research ethics; Trustworthiness

Williams G & Pigeot I (2016) Consent and confidentiality in the light of recent demands for data sharing. Biometrical Journal. doi: 10.1002/bimj.201500044
Publisher: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bimj.201500044/abstract

0