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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Consent

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

A preliminary geneaology of research ethics review and Māori0

 

Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald
AHRECS, Consultant
  

In New Zealand, we have two separate drivers for change in research ethics for working with Māori.  The first are the institutional responses to the legal requirements of government institutions to accord justice to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (see Te Puni Kokiri, 2001). The second arise where Māori scholars have pulled on practices and ideas within their iwi and hapū to develop a Māori centred research philosophy, that in turn has created a distinctively Māori research ethics.

I made this argument at a recent conference, in a paper to honour the late Barry Smith. Barry, in reviewing ethics applications and creating ethics policy could articulate how to negotiate both with his usual insight, grace and wit and aloha. Without him to drive developments we must think carefully about how to follow his example of synthesising the best of ethical approaches to advance Māori wellbeing and rangatiratanga (roughly translated as indigenous self-determination, see Durie, 1988).

So what is the history of research ethics approaches to research with Māori? First, the radical 1984 Labour government’s privatisation agenda enshrined ‘the principles of the Treaty of Wāitangi’ that put in critical pieces of legislation to ensure continued Māori support. The first, and most important of these Treaty clauses was in section 9 of the 1986 State-Owned Enterprise Act.

s9 nothing in the Act permitted the Crown to act in a manner that was inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Wāitangi.

When the government inevitably breached this section, a judicial review case allowed the Court of Appeal (at the time New Zealand’s highest court) to set out its view of the relationship between the Crown and Māori. (New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General 1 NZLR 641, (1987) 6 NZAR 353). Later cases set out that consultation had to be conducted with an open mind, and Māori were to be given complete information about the subject. Wellington International Airport Ltd v Air NZ [1991] 1 NZLR 671 (Court of Appeal)

The case indicated that the courts expected any government institution (with a Treaty clause in its enabling legislation) to ‘consult’ – to the satisfaction of a court – with Māori individuals and groups who may be affected by its policies or practices. So all government agencies have since been on notice that they must consult with Māori fully on decisions that might affect Māori, and not to do so could lead to a judicial review of their decision-making by a court. Moreover, any Māori individual could also ask the Wāitangi Tribunal (an ongoing political commission of inquiry into Treaty breaches) to review a government action or inaction which breached the principles of the Treaty of Wāitangi.
Due to these incentives, government agencies got into the practice of consulting with Māori organisations on anything that might be of interest or affect Māori. So both the health sector ethics committees and the University ethics committees developed policies that asked applicants to demonstrate they had ‘consulted’ with Māori.

At the same time, a more humane approach to Māori research ethics was also being developed – it arose from Māori scholars grappling with how to inject Te Ao Māori (literally, the Māori world) into the systems around them. Models included, Te Whare Tapa Whā (Durie, 1984), The Meihana model (Pitama, 2007) and the Hui model (Lacey, 2011), to name but a few. In all of these models, there is a wealth of indigenous knowledge that is also discussed beautifully in Te Ara Tika (Smith, 2010), a guide to reviewing research involving Māori, that arose from Barry’s concerns around gaps in knowledge about Māori and research ethics.

So there is an objective legal risk driving consultation with Māori over research on the one hand, and on the other, a philosophically normative Māori centred ethics, drawn from a Māori-centric approach. They can sit awkwardly together for researchers and reviewers. For instance, the two approaches are often combined as though they are one – so that researchers are left thinking they are legally required to adopt Māori normative ethics prescribed in the scholarly models of Māori research, and so do not listen to the tikanga (protocols) of the local community with whom they are researching. Alternatively, researchers may comply with the spirit of the law and do consultation – but as the government has proved time and time again; meeting the judicial test for consultation can still leave many feeling deeply unheard.

This leaves non-Māori, and I have seen this as a Māori research consultant for my University, in what Tolich called, ‘Pakeha [non-Māori] Paralysis’ – that is, paralysed by Māori concerns and thus avoiding doing research with Māori. Indeed I have counselled academics to avoid Māori centred research because they do not have skills to do it.

The deeper problem is that non-Māori researchers don’t have the resources to research appropriately with Māori. And Māori don’t, and should not have to have the capacity to serve the needs of non-Māori researchers.

I have pointed out the incentives for? ethics review for Māori because I believe they can show us how to solve the problem. The law states that ethics reviewers must take seriously the voices of Māori in the research, but taking that seriously is not to follow the dictates of legal cases about consultation – those cases were decided about events unrelated to research or ethics. Nor must ethics committees think particular Māori philosophies of research must apply, since there are many more communities that have their own philosophies, and it is those local philosophies that should be privileged.

If we look to the underlying principles of both Māori research principles and legal cases, they combine to suggest we must take seriously the idea that research engages with Māori when it takes seriously the voices of the communities and participants involved in, or around the research. That is, the researchers should be seeking and assisting Māori voices to be heard in the research, if those Māori communities and individuals wish to be heard. To meet the legal needs, and to ensure Māori are given rangatiratanga, I suggest the appropriate question for a researcher to ask themselves (or be asked by the review committee) is ‘how are you making it possible for the Māori individuals and communities to communicate and participate with you in the project should they wish?

References

Durie, M. (1998). Te Mana Te Kawanatanga: The politics of Maori self-determination. Auckland; New York: Oxford University Press.

Durie, M. (2001). Mauri Ora: The Dynamics of Māori Health.

Pitama, S., Robertson, P., Cram, F., Gillies, M., Huria, T., & dallas-katoa, W. (2007). Meihana Model: A Clinical Assessment Framework. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36.

Lacey, C., Huria, T. B.,Lutz, & Gilles, M. P., Suzanne. (2011). The Hui Process: a framework to enhance the doctor–patient relationship with Māori. New Zealand Medical Journal, 124(1347).

Smith, B., Reynolds, P., Russell, K.,& et.al. (2010). TE ARA TIKA Guidelines for Māori Research Ethics : A framework for researchers and ethics committee members. Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Te Puni KokirI (Ministry or Māori Development) (2001) He tirohanga o kawa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi: A guide to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. Wellington, N.Z.: https://www.tpk.govt.nz/documents/download/179/tpk-treatyprinciples-2001-en.pdf

Tolich, M. (2002). Pakeha” paralysis”: Cultural safety for those researching the general population of Aotearoa. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 164-178.

For a good guide to the history and impact of Treaty clauses in legislation see
Palmer, M. (2008). The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s law and constitution. Wellington [N.Z.]: Victoria University Press.

This post may be cited as:

Te Ata o Tu MacDonald, L. (4 December 2019) A preliminary geneaology of research ethics review and Māori. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/a-preliminary-geneaology-of-research-ethics-review-and-maori

The research use of online data/web 2.0 comments0

 

Does it require research ethics review and specified consent?

Dr Gary Allen
AHRECS Senior Consultant

The internet is a rich source of information for researchers. On the Web 2.0 we see extensive commentary on numerous life matters, which may be of interest to researchers in a wide range of (sub)disciplines. Research interest in these matters frequently prompts the following questions –Can I use that in my project? Hasn’t that already been published? Is research ethics review required? Is it necessary to obtain express consent for the research use?

It’s important to recognise that these questions aren’t posed in isolation. Cases like the OkCupid data scraping scandal, the Ashley Madison hack, Emotional Contagion, Cambridge Analytica and others provide a disturbing context.  At a time when the use of the internet and social media is startingly high (Nielsen 2019, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018, commentaries such as the WebAlive blog 2019), there is also significant distrust of the platforms people are using. Consequently, there are good reasons for researchers and research ethics reviewers to be cautious about use of existing material for research, even if the terms and conditions of a site/platform specifically discuss research.

Like many ethics questions, there isn’t a single simple answer that is correct all the time.  The use of some kinds of data for research may not meet the National Statement’s definition of human research. Use of other kinds of data may meet that definition but will be exempt from review and so not require explicit consent. Use of other kinds of data or other uses of data that involves no more than low risk can be reviewed outside an HREC meeting and others will actually have to be considered at an HREC meeting.

AHRECS proposes a three-part test, which can be applied to individual projects to test whether a proposed use of internet data is human research and needs ethics review and this will also guide whether explicit and project-specific consent is required. If this test is formally adopted by an institution and by its research ethics committees, it would provide a transparent, consistent, and predictable way to judge these matters.

You can find a word copy of the questions, as well as a png and pdf copy of the flow diagram in our subscribers’ area.
.

For institutions
https://ahrecs.vip/flow…
$350/year
.

For individuals
https://www.patreon.com/posts/flow…
USD10/month
.

 

For any questions email enquiry@ahrecs.com

Part One of this test is whether the content of a site or platform is publicly available. One component of this test is whether the researcher will be using scraping, spoofing or hacking of the site/platform to obtain information.
.

Part Two of the test relates to whether individuals have consented and will be reasonably identifiable from the data and its proposed research use and whether there are risks to those individuals.  A component of this test is exploring whether an exemption from the consent requirement is necessary (i.e. as provided for by paragraphs 2.3.9 -12 of the National Statement and are lawful under any privacy regulation that applies).

Part Three of the test relates to how the proposed project relates to the national human research ethics guidelines – the National Statement – and whether there are any matters that must be considered by a human research ethics committee.  For example, Section 3 of the National Statement (2007 updated 2018) discusses some methodological matters and Section 4 some potential participant issues that must be considered by an HREC.

Individually, any one of these parts could determine that review and consent is required. But meeting all three parts of the test is necessary to indicate that the work is exempt before a project can be exempted from review.

Even if the tests indicate review/consent is required, that doesn’t mean the research is ethically problematic, just a project requires for more due consideration.

The implication of this is that not all research based upon online comments or social media posts can be exempted from review but, conversely, not all such work must be ethically reviewed.  The approach that should be taken depends upon project-specific design matters.  A strong and justifiable institutional process will have nuanced criteria on these matters.  Failing to establish transparent and predictable policies would be a serious lapse in an important area of research.

Booklet 37 of the Griffith University Research Ethics Manual now incorporates this three-part test.

In the subscribers’ area you will find a suggested question set for the three-part test, as well as a graphic overview of the work flow for the questions.

It is recommended institutions adopt their own version of the test, including policy positions with regard to the use of hacked or scraped data, or the research use of material in a manner at odds with a site/platform’s rules.

References

Australian agency to probe Facebook after shocking revelation – The New Daily. Accessed 16/11/19 from https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2018/04/05/facebook-data-leak-australia/

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) 8153.0 – Internet Activity, Australia, June 2018. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0/ (accessed 27 September 2019)

Chamber, C. (2014 01 July) Facebook fiasco: was Cornell’s study of ‘emotional contagion’ an ethics breach? The Guardian. Accessed 16/11/19 from http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/jul/01/facebook-cornell-study-emotional-contagion-ethics-breach

Griffith University (Updated 2019) Griffith University Research Ethics Manual (GUREM). Accessed 16/11/19 from https://www.griffith.edu.au/research/research-services/research-ethics-integrity/human/gurem

McCook, A. (2016 16 May) Publicly available data on thousands of OKCupid users pulled over copyright claim.  Retraction Watch. Accessed 16/11/19 from http://retractionwatch.com/2016/05/16/publicly-available-data-on-thousands-of-okcupid-users-pulled-over-copyright-claim/

Nielsen (2019, 26 July) TOTAL CONSUMER REPORT 2019: Navigating the trust economy in CPG. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/report/2019/total-consumer-report-2019/ (accessed 27 September 2019)

NHMRC (2007 updated 2018) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Accessed 17/11/19 from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018

Satran, J. (2015 02 September) Ashley Madison Hack Creates Ethical Conundrum For Researchers. Huffington Post. Accessed 16/11/19 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/ashley-madison-hack-creates-ethical-conundrum-for-researchers_55e4ac43e4b0b7a96339dfe9?section=australia&adsSiteOverride=au

WebAlive (2019 24 June) The State of Australia’s Ecommerce in 2019 Retrieved from https://www.webalive.com.au/ecommerce-statistics-australia/ (accessed 27 September 2019).

Recommendations for further reading

Editorial (2018 12 March) Cambridge Analytica controversy must spur researchers to update data ethics. Nature. Accessed 16/11/19 from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03856-4?utm_source=briefing-dy&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=briefing&utm_content=20180329

Neuroskeptic (2018 14 July) The Ethics of Research on Leaked Data: Ashley Madison. Discover. Accessed 16/11/19 from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2018/07/14/ethics-research-leaked-ashley-madison/#.Xc97NC1L0RU

Newman, L. (2017 3 July) WikiLeaks Just Dumped a Mega-Trove of CIA Hacking Secrets. Wired Magazine. Accessed 16/11/19 from https://www.wired.com/2017/03/wikileaks-cia-hacks-dump/

Weaver, M (2018 25 April) Cambridge University rejected Facebook study over ‘deceptive’ privacy standards. TheGuardian. Accessed 16/11/19 from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/24/cambridge-university-rejected-facebook-study-over-deceptive-privacy-standards

Woodfield, K (ed.) (2017) The Ethics of Online Research. Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2398-601820180000002004

Zhang, S. (2016 20 May ) Scientists are just as confused about the ethics of big-data research as you. Wired Magazine. Accessed 16/011/19 from http://www.wired.com/2016/05/scientists-just-confused-ethics-big-data-research/

Competing interests

Gary is the principal author of the Griffith University Research Ethics Manual (GUREM) and receives a proportion of license sales.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. (23 November 2019) The research use of online data/web 2.0 comments. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/the-research-use-of-online-data-web-2-0-comments

Ethics, Security and Privacy – the Bermuda Triangle of data management?0

 

Malcolm Wolski and Andrew Bowness
Griffith University

 

To manage sensitive research data appropriately, ethics, security and privacy requirements need to be considered. Researchers are traditionally familiar with ethics, but often have not considered the privacy and security pieces of the puzzle. Our reasons for making this statement are:

  • IT products used in research change rapidly
  • Legislation changes rapidly and there are jurisdictional issues
  • Most researchers are not legal or IT experts
  • No one teaches them enough basics to know what is risky behaviour

The recent revision to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018) on Management of Data and Information in Research highlights that it is not just the responsibility of a university to use best practice, but it is also the responsibility of the researcher. The responsible conduct of research includes within its scope the appropriate generation, collection, access, use, analysis, disclosure, storage, retention, disposal, sharing and re-use of data and information. Researchers have a responsibility to make themselves aware of the requirements of any relevant codes, legislation, regulatory, contractual or consent agreements, and to ensure they comply with them.

It’s a complex world

However, this is becoming an increasingly more complex environment for researchers. First, privacy legislation is dependent on jurisdiction of participants. For one example, a research project involving participants in Queensland is impacted by not only the Australian Privacy Act but also the Queensland version (Information Privacy Act 2009 Qld), and, if a participant or collaborator is an EU citizen, the General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR).

Secondly, cybersecurity and information security activities in universities have increased dramatically in recent times because of publicised data breaches and the impact of data breach legislation. If your research involves foreign citizens, you may also find foreign legislation impacting the type of response required.

Thirdly, funding agencies, such as government departments are increasingly specifying security and privacy requirements in tender responses and contracts.

These are having an impact on research project governance and practices, particularly for projects where the researcher has identified they are working with sensitive data. While the conversation typically focuses on data identified under the privacy acts as sensitive (e.g. Personally Identifiable Information (Labelled) under the Australian Privacy Act), researchers handle a range of data they may wish to treat as sensitive, whether for contractual reasons (e.g. participant consent, data sharing agreements) or for other reasons (e.g. ethical or cultural).

We have noticed an increasing trend within institutions where researchers are being required to provide more information on how they manage data as specified in a proposal or in a data sharing agreement. This typically revolves around data privacy and security, which is different from the ethics requirements.

What does “security” and “privacy” mean to the practitioner

IT security is more about minimising attack points though process or by using IT solutions to prevent or minimise the impacts of hostile acts or alternatively minimise impacts though misadventure (e.g. leaving a laptop on a bus). Data security is more in the sphere of IT and not researchers. This is reflected in which software products, systems and storage are “certified” to be safely used for handling and managing data classified as sensitive. IT usually also provides the identity management systems used to share data.

We have also noticed that researchers are relying on software vendors’ website claims about security and privacy which is problematic because most cloud software is running from offshore facilities which do not comply with Australian privacy legislation. Unless you are an expert in both Australian legislation and cybersecurity you need to rely on the expertise of your institutional IT and cybersecurity teams to verify vendors’ claims.

In the current environment, data privacy is more about mandated steps and activities designed to force a minimal set of user behaviours to prevent harm caused through successful attacks or accidental data breaches. It usually involves punishment to force good behaviour (e.g. see Data Breach Legislation for late reporting). Typically, data privacy is more the responsibility of the researcher. It usually involves governance processes (e.g. who has been given access to what data) or practices (e.g. what software products the team actually uses to share and store data).

What we should be worrying about

The Notifiable Data Breaches Statistics Report: 1 April to 30 June 2019 highlighted that only 4% of breaches, out of 254 notifications, were due to system faults, but 34% were due to human error and 62% due to malicious or criminal acts. Based on these statistics, the biggest risk associated with data breaches is where the data is in the hands of the end-user (i.e. the researcher) not with the IT systems themselves.

We argue the risks are also greater in research than the general population because of a number of factors such as the diversity of data held (e.g. data files, images, audio etc), the fluidity of the team membership, teams often being made up of staff across department and institutional boundaries, mobility of staff, data collection activities offsite, and the range of IT products needed in the research process.

For this discussion, the focus is on the governance and practice factor within the research project team and how this relates back to the ethics requirements when it has been highlighted that the project will involve working with sensitive data.

Help!!

We have worked closely with researcher groups for many years and have noticed a common problem. Researchers are confronted with numerous legislative, regulatory, policy and contractual requirements all written in terminology and language that bears little resemblance with what happens in practice. For example, to comply with legislation:

  • what does sending a data file “securely” over the internet actually look like in practice and which IT products are “safe”?
  • Is your university-provided laptop with the standard institutional image certified as “safe” for data classified as private? How do you know?
  • Is your mobile phone a “safe” technology to record interviews or images classified as private data? What is a “safe” technology for field work?

Within the university sector a range of institutional business units provide support services. For example, IT may provide advice assessing the security and privacy compliance of software, networked equipment or hardware infrastructure and the library may provide data management advice covering sensitive data. At our institution, Griffith University, the eResearch Services and the Library Research Services teams have been working closely with research groups to navigate their way through this minefield to develop standard practices fit for their purpose.

What we think is the best way forward

Our approach is to follow the Five Safes framework which has also been adopted by the Office of the National Data Commissioner. For example:

  • Safe People Is the research team member appropriately authorised to access and use specified data i.e. do you have a documented data access plan against team roles and a governance/induction process to gain access to restricted data?
  • Safe Projects Is the data to be used for an appropriate purpose i.e. do you have copies of the underlying data sharing/consent agreements, contracts, documents outlining ownership and licensing rights?
  • Safe Settings Does the access environment prevent unauthorised use i.e. do IT systems and processes support this and are access levels checked regularly?
  • Safe Data Has appropriate and sufficient protection been applied to the data i.e. what is it and does it commensurate with the level of risk involved?
  • Safe Outputs Are the statistical results non-disclosive or have you checked rights/licensing issues?

Expect to see a lot more of the Five Safes approach in the coming years.

References

Hardy, M. C., Carter, A., & Bowden, N. (2016). What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers.2, 16093. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.93

Meacham, S. (2016). The 2016 ASMR Health and Medical Research Workforce Survey. Australian Society of Medical Research.

Contributors

Malcolm Wolski, Director eResearch Services, Griffith University

Andrew Bowness, Manager, Support Services, eResearch Services, Griffith University

This post may be cited as:
Wolski, M. and Bowness, A. (29 September 2019) Ethics, Security and Privacy – the Bermuda Triangle of data management?. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/ethics-security-and-privacy-the-bermuda-triangle-of-data-management

The need to seek institutional approval to survey staff – was this a misunderstanding of the purpose of Guideline 2.2.13 in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research?0

 

Katherine (Kate) Christian, Carolyn Johnstone, Jo-ann Larkins and Wendy Wright
Federation University

 

We have conducted a research project investigating the factors contributing to the satisfaction – or dissatisfaction – of early-career researchers (ECRs) from across Australia working in the sciences. A requirement of our ethics approval was a need to provide evidence from every university and research institute of permission to approach their staff to invite their participation in our research.

This requirement was a consequence of answering ‘yes’ to the following question:

If your research involves participants from other organisations (e.g. educational institutions, companies, agencies, collectives), you may need to obtain authorised approval before approaching participants, eg: Department of Education and Training, School Principals, School Councils (for research involving Government schools); Catholic Education Office (Catholic schools); School Boards (Independent schools); Senior Officers (Commercial or Government entities); Elders (Aboriginal communities); or Representative bodies (Collectives). Copies of approval letters must be attached to this application or, if pending at the time of submission, forwarded to HREC when available. Some authorities may decline to provide permission letters until ethics approval has been granted. In such cases, you should submit your application to the HREC for provisional approval pending receipt of the documentation.

Does research involve or impact on participants from external agencies or organisations?  Yes  No

 

 

Our project entailed collection of data from researchers, typically from other institutions, no more than ten years past the award of their PhD who could be participants in a focus group, one-on-one in-depth interviews or in a national on-line survey. The precise method for extending invitations to participants for each of these activities (which included email invitations, social media posts, and advertising by relevant bodies) was specified in the ethics application and approved by our Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). In most cases email approaches were to be made by third parties, for example distribution of a forwarded email; otherwise email contact was limited to those people whose contact details were known or publicly available.

The eligible population was adult, clearly defined and without special risks; individuals were able to offer informed consent as defined in the overarching principle for consent in the National Statement defined in Section 2.2.1:

The guiding principle for researchers is that a person’s decision to participate in research is to be voluntary, and based on sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the proposed research and the implications of participation in it.

An attempt to meet the requirement to seek approval for people to be invited to take part in the survey from the prospective 37 universities and many independent research institutes was extremely arduous and a significant barrier to recruitment. We question whether seeking this approval added ethical value, and indeed, whether it may have been required because of a misunderstanding of the purpose of the National Statement, in particular of Section 2.2.13:

Within some communities, decisions about participation in research may involve not only individuals but also properly interested parties such as formally constituted bodies, institutions, families or community elders. Researchers need to engage with all properly interested parties in planning the research.

Section 2.2.13 of the National Statement is placed in the section ‘Where others need to be involved in participation decisions’ and appears directly after a section relating to potential participants who lack the capacity to consent. This requirement appears on the documentation of some other Australian HRECs, (including Australian Catholic University, University of Melbourne,  Menzies Research Institute). However, we believe this section of the National Statement is intended to apply to research conducted within organisations and communities that have a duty of care towards people – or groups of people – who are at risk, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, school students or adults with special needs.

Alternatively, it could be construed the request to obtain approval is a misunderstanding of the first part of 3.1.16 and that HRECs take the view that the institutions, in their capacity as employers, have a duty of care as ‘gatekeepers’ for their employees.

Researchers and reviewers should consider the degree to which potential participant populations might be over‑researched or may require special consideration or protection and the degree to which the flow of benefits to that population (or to individual participants) justify the burdens.

The latter part of this section suggests that individuals within the ECR population that we were attempting to sample could have been permitted to make up their own minds about participation, as they do not fall into the type of special category suggested.

Equally, people should not be denied the opportunity to exercise self-determination or obtain the potential benefits of research solely because they are a member of a population that might be over-researched or may require special consideration or protection, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The literature about the work-life of ECRs in STEMM disciplines in Australia does not show evidence of an over-researched ECR population or a group which merits special consideration. We are aware of only two national surveys of Australian ECRs in STEMM in recent years (Hardy, Carter, & Bowden, 2016, Meacham, 2016).

If any university staff member received an invitation to participate from an external researcher, whether directly or forwarded from an internal address, it is unlikely they would have wondered if either the researcher, or they, needed permission from the organization. Instead, they would make an individual decision on participation or otherwise, and act accordingly.

We used several recruitment strategies. Since all the potential participants worked at universities and research institutes, a direct approach to these entities provided the logical and, indeed, preferred avenue. Organisations and associations whose members were likely to represent the target audience were also approached; these ‘umbrella’ groups were very supportive ofrequests for assistance with recruitment of participants and, more generally of the research. They extended an invitation to their members on behalf of the project team via broadcast email and social media. Another HREC-approved method of recruitment was via social media. Social media, which has no boundaries, proved itself to be a successful avenue for recruitment and due to its very nature and culture of sharing brought in responses from prospective participants based at many universities from which we had received no response to our initial request for approval to recruit their staff. Such responses did not violate ethics requirements, again bringing into question the merits of seeking institutional approval.

We did not interpret the requirement to obtain approval as being necessary for the ‘umbrella’ organisations as they do not have the same responsibility for, or duty of care to, the ECRs. This highlights another anomaly in the interpretation of the guidelines: what constitutes ‘an organisation’ from which approval might be required? So saying, we interpreted the ready agreement of these organisations to share the invitation, whether by distributing the link by email or by promoting it on social media, as implicit approval.

We recommend that HRECs amend their forms to permit researchers to offer further explanation about the nature of the people being recruited and their capacity to freely make a consent decision so that the Committee members can make appropriate decisions about the need for institutional approvals. We argue that these approvals should only be required when the research participants need a particular level of protection.

References

Hardy, M. C., Carter, A., & Bowden, N. (2016). What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers.2, 16093. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.93

Meacham, S. (2016). The 2016 ASMR Health and Medical Research Workforce Survey. Australian Society of Medical Research.

Contributors

Katherine Christian, Federation University Australia School of Arts, Mt Helen Campus, Ballarat, Victoria

Carolyn Johnstone, Federation University Australia School of Arts, Mt Helen Campus, Ballarat, Victoria

Jo-ann Larkins, Federation University Australia School of Science, Engineering and Information Technology, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Victoria

Wendy Wright, Federation University Australia School of Health and Life Sciences, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Victoria[MI3]

Sources

Menzies Research Institute
https://www.menzies.edu.au › Research › Forms › HREC_Application_Form

Australian Catholic University
https://www.acu.edu.au/research/research-ethics-integrity-and-compliance/research-ethics
https://www.acu.edu.au › assets › Ethics_Guidelines_revised_March_2012

University of Melbourne
https://staff.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1977543/HRE-Application-Guidance-V-1.1.pdf

This post may be cited as:
Christian, K., Johnstone, C. Jo-ann Larkins, J. and Wright, W. (17 September 2019) The need to seek institutional approval to survey staff –was this a misunderstanding of the purpose of Guideline 2.2.13 in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research?. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/the-need-to-seek-institutional-approval-to-survey-staff-was-this-a-misunderstanding-of-the-purpose-of-guideline-2-2-13-in-the-national-statement-on-ethical-conduct-in-human-research

0