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

ResourcesSocial Science

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

NSPCC Research Ethics Committee: Guidance for applicants0

Posted by Admin in on October 3, 2017
 

Guidance and standards document produced by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC).

Governance
The aim of the NSPCC ethical review process is to provide a thorough, impartial examination of the ethical issues in a collaborative, pragmatic and proportionate way. In formal terms, the NSPCC research ethics committee (NSPCC REC) is an advisory body with an external chair and a majority of external members, which makes recommendations to the organisation, with the ultimate decision and responsibly resting with Director of Strategy, Policy and Evidence, as the representative of the senior management team and of the trustees. In practice, applicants are expected to follow the NSPCC REC’s recommendations and to work with the NSPCC REC to adapt proposals so that they satisfy the committee that they are in accordance with the principles set out in the GSRU and ESRC frameworks. In extremis, where an applicant and the NSPCC REC cannot agree, a decision about whether the research can proceed and on what basis will be taken by the Director of Strategy, Policy and Evidence. However, before this can happen, the Director must be satisfied that all possible ways of finding an agreed way forward have been exhausted. Applicants should also remember that ultimate responsibility for studies being conducted in an ethical way rests solely with individual researchers and their managers.”

Access the NSPCC guidance document

AHRECS research ethics workshop at ACU0

Posted by Admin in on September 28, 2017
 

In September 2017, Mark Israel ran a seminar on research ethics and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at the Australian Catholic University.

The seminar explored issues raised by our work for the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching https://ahrecs.com/previous-projects/sotl-resource-booklets AHRECS is happy to arrange to run this seminar in other institutions.

Click here for more about our services and how to engage us.

Resignations at ‘Third World Quarterly’ – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on September 20, 2017
 

Much of the journal’s editorial board resigns, saying that a controversial article arguing in favor of colonialism failed to pass peer review but was published anyway — and that the journal’s editor then misrepresented the process.

Fifteen members of Third World Quarterly’s editorial board resigned Tuesday over the publication of a controversial article they said had been rejected through peer review.

The news comes a day after the journal’s editor in chief issued an apparently contradictory statement saying that the essay had been published only after undergoing double-blind peer review.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

AI Gaydar Study Gets Another Look – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on September 18, 2017
 

A prominent journal that already accepted a controversial study about using computers to “read” sexuality based on a photo is further scrutinizing the paper after intense public backlash.

Michal Kosinski, a psychologist and assistant professor of business at Stanford University, knew his new study about training a computer to recognize gays and lesbians by their photos would be controversial: so much so that he sat on the paper for months before submitting it for publication.

But while Kosinski expected backlash, he didn’t expect the journal that had already accepted his paper — a preliminary version of which has been widely viewed online — to do what it did this week: initiate another review of parts of the study, citing new concerns about ethics.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Also see

Using AI to determine queer sexuality is misconceived and dangerous – The Conversation (Alex Sharpe and Senthorun Raj | September 2017)

How do we know if someone is gay? A recent Stanford University study has claimed that Artificial Intelligence (AI) using a facial recognition algorithm can more accurately guess whether a person is gay or lesbian than human beings can.

The study has proved controversial not because of our apparent mediocrity in the face of computer algorithms, but because of its dubious methodology – among other things, its exclusive focus on white subjects and its exclusion of bisexual, transgender, and intersex participants. It also highlights the dangers AI poses to the “outing” of sexual minorities against their will, exposing people to possible discrimination.

We strongly object to the use of an algorithmic “gaydar” to predict a person’s sexual orientation and believe studies such as this are both misconceived and pose very real and present dangers for LGBTQI human rights around the world.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Also see

Journal Will Publish AI Gaydar Study After All – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | September 2017)

After some additional review, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology will publish a controversial study about training a computer to predict someone’s sexual orientation based on a photo. An editor for American Psychological Association-owned journal last week informed co-author Michal Kosinski, an assistant professor of business at Stanford University, that it would proceed with publishing the already accepted paper. That seemed somewhat up in the air earlier in the week, when the journal said it needed to address the “ethical status” of the project — namely issues related to copyright of publicly available photos and how Stanford’s Institutional Review Board had assessed the project.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0