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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesSocial Science

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Publish your reflections on a research project with SAGE Sociology Research Methods Cases0

Posted by Admin in on November 14, 2016
 

Have you completed a research project in the field of Sociology? Are you interested in sharing your experience of the research process?

This is an opportunity to build up a library of research ethics related cases.

Writing a case study is easy – just tell us about your research journey! We want you to write a short, accessible reflection on a research project that you have undertaken. Through reading your case students will learn how to carry out a research project, choose and use appropriate methods and recognize the challenges of research in the real world.
.
SAGE Research Methods Cases at a glance

  • Cases should be 2,000-5,000 words in length.
  • Cases will be peer reviewed and authors will be asked to respond to reviewer queries.
  • Cases should be written using our SAGE Research Methods Cases Sociology submission template.

Read the rest of SAGE’s request for case studies

Trust, Access and Sensitive Boundaries Between ‘Public’ and ‘Private’: A Returning Insider’s Experience of Research in Bulgaria (Papers: Milena I. Kremakova, 2014)0

Posted by Admin in on November 13, 2016
 

Abstract
The article argues that social researchers need a critical, locally situated and historically informed understanding of the categories of ‘public’ and ‘private’, in particular when carrying out research in post-socialist Eastern Europe. Drawing on an ethnographic study of the working lives of Bulgarian maritime workers, the article discusses a range of ethical fieldwork dilemmas encountered while negotiating field access, maintaining relations with gatekeepers, recruiting participants, establishing rapport, interviewing, gaining access to documentary evidence and exiting the field. The analysis focuses on the conceptual and practical boundaries between the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ and highlights the entanglement of the public and private spheres. The notion of ‘returning insider’ is developed and the implications of the returning insider’s positionality are discussed in Bulgarian post-socialist context.

Keywords: Bulgaria, Eastern Europe, Ethnography, Maritime Labour, Post-Socialist, Research Ethics, ‘returning Insider’

Kremakova MI  (2014) Trust, Access and Sensitive Boundaries Between ‘Public’ and ‘Private’: A Returning Insider’s Experience of Research in Bulgaria. Sociological Research Online, 19(4). Article number 12. ISSN 1360-7804
Publisher: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/19/4/12.html

Public consultation underway on a new chapter 3.1 and a revision to chapter 3.5 of the National Statement – Have your say0

Posted by Admin in on November 6, 2016
 

The Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC) of the NHMRC is currently coordinating a public consultation with regard to a new Chapter 3.1, significant revisions to Chapter 3.5, associated minor changes to Section 5 and proposed additions to the Glossary of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. The Australian Research Council (ARC) and Universities Australia (UA) are seeking the input of a wide range of researchers, research ethics reviewers and research office staff.

You can find the details of this public consultation process here.

Three members of the AHRECS team (Gary, Colin and Mark) were members of the 10 person committee that drafted the new Chapter 3.1. The drafting committee’s recommendations were considered and endorsed by the National Statement Review Working Group, which includes nominees from the ARC and UA. The AHRECS team are proud of our role in the drafting of the new Chapter 3.1 and the additions to the Glossary. We believe that this material will provide useful guidance with regard to the ethical design and the review of human research across a far wider range of human research (sub)disciplines, methods and designs than is addressed by the existing National Statement.

We also believe the proposed changes to Chapter 3.5 make a welcome contribution with regard to genomic research.

With full acknowledgement that we are not an unbiased commentator with regard to these changes, we urge members of the AHRECS community to read through the changes and consider submitting a response to the public consultation. Making a submission is important even if you are supportive of the proposed changes. Indeed, given the significance of what has been proposed an expression of support may be essential to ensure the changes are included in the National Statement.

Ethical Requirements and Responsibilities in Video Methodologies: Considering Confidentiality and Representation in Social Justice Research (Papers: Steph M. Anderson and Carolina Muñoz Proto 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on October 30, 2016
 

Abstract

In recent years, psychologists have begun to use video more frequently in qualitative research, in particular, within research on social justice. The non-confidential nature inherent in video, however, raises new ethical challenges for the field of psychology to address. Building upon a growing literature on video-based research, in this article, we use an illustrative case study to examine how researchers’ sense of ethical responsibility can find guidance from, clash against, or fill gaps left by extant federal and disciplinary ethical requirements. We focus specifically on issues of confidentiality and representation, highlighting the challenges and possibilities that video creates in relation to participants’ power, dignity, and participation and arguing that psychologists must systematically engage questions about ethical responsibilities throughout the design and implementation phases of a research project. In doing so, psychologists, their community partners, and students will be better able to articulate and problematize their assumptions and intentions regarding video work.

Anderson SM and Muñoz CP (2016) Ethical Requirements and Responsibilities in Video Methodologies: Considering Confidentiality and Representation in Social Justice Research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 10(7) pp377-389 DOI 10.1111/spc3.12259
Publisher: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12259/abstract
Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304821606_Ethical_Requirements…
Academia: https://www.academia.edu/28516816/Ethical_Requirements…

0