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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Ethical review

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

Clergy service to HRECs: the useful paradox within secular governance of research involving human participants0

 

Aviva Kipen, Union for Progressive Judaism and Progressive Judaism Victoria.

In 2015, I earned a Doctor of Ministry Studies degree from the University of Divinity in Melbourne. The thesis, investigating how 13 Christian and Jewish clergy experienced HREC service in their pastoral care roles, arose from my own human research ethics committee and Victorian Biotechnologies Ethics Advisory Committee service and extensive interfaith work. I had been mentored into my service to the Monash University HREC by the Rev’d Dr Judy Redman, the then Victorian Uniting Church Outreach Ministries Coordinator. I found myself in the company of Anglican clergy and had succeeded Catholics – nuns and priests – Buddhist monks and also male rabbis who had served before me. Joining Judy, the serving female minister, made the gender issue less remarkable than it might otherwise have been, even in the late 1990s. The faith interchanges on succession raised my immediate curiosity that would later lead to the research question and the project on which this piece draws.

The then National Guidelines were clear: we clergy appointees were not there to push our own denominational barrows. Still, I became curious about what was really going on in the minds of others who served HRECs interchangeably from a range of faiths and traditions regardless of often-irreconcilable theologies in the ‘pastoral chairs’. My interfaith work meant I was confident that, in the event of content matters being beyond my own repertoire, I would have an extensive network from which to seek expert guidance if asked to do so. But HREC appointment provides an opportunity to serve far beyond the specifics of faith content occasionally referenced in research applications.

I became aware that the recruitment of ‘the pastor’ in other committees was not always simple. I had been spotted at a meeting about chaplaincy in women’s prisons! How had others been identified and invited to join committees? What constituted their self-understanding of the ministry service being gifted to the committees they served? Would my interviews disclose any kind of ‘evangelism by stealth’?  Did faiths or denominations target access to committees assessing large amounts politically/theologically/ethically sensitive, kinds of research?

I discovered no documents showing the means by which the Catholic Church became an early adopter of the opportunity to be represented, but clearly there were Catholic clergy leading the discussion in the early years. My research showed great diversity within the voices of the Christian ministers. Even within denominations, including between current serving Catholics, there was diversity of expression on ground-breaking issues. It became clear that the one participant who asserted his role as being to represent the Catholic position, was the exceptional Catholic voice. Other Catholics applied the provisions of the current National Statement informed by their own faith understanding, but with broad appreciation for other communities’ concerns.

Many clergy enjoyed the intellectual effort of meeting preparation and assessing applications, perhaps indicating a somewhat obsessive character trait. The rigor of disciplined meetings, the collegiality with co-assessors and committee colleagues was experienced by many as a valued counterweight to congregational demands. When appointed, some experienced a bit of resistance and some took a gentle ribbing. But as they became known and trusted on their merits and performance, tenures were frequently extended. There was some inference that if individuals had theologies unable to embrace the content or methodologies required in assessing projects, it would be unlikely that they would find their way onto committees. A few references to short tenures alluded to non-renewal of clergy who were not a good fit.

The diversity of appointments reflects the neighbourhoods/communities served by HRECs and is appropriately representative of our national diversity. One participant was from a highly conservative evangelical denomination. The interview triggered deeply thoughtful reaction about personal identity relative to the HREC work. I would later find out that the reflection resulted in some major theological grappling as a consequence of the conversation. Regardless of denomination, interviewees found themselves intrigued by the attention my investigation was bringing to HREC clergy/pastoral work, which had almost invariably been out of the faiths’ hierarchical spotlights. Most remained entirely grateful for the freedom to do the HREC work without such attention.

One pastor described choosing not to participate in a committee discussion because he was aware his personal knowledge was not sufficient. It was a frank admission. The example begs the question of how applications need to enable comprehension and how lay and other non-disciplinary experts are enabled in their roles. Others found solutions to specific matters of dogma by offering wordings that would provide enough cues to the faith’s adherents to ensure they were going to be able to make informed choices without imperilling projects. What emerged was that clergy were clear about their denominational obligations and the tension between them and the needs of others in the general community.

Given that the task of assessing applications and contributing to meetings is identical for all HREC members, how do clergy understand themselves alongside their colleagues (who may be harbouring strong religious views but are not required to disclose them and which need not be presumed) as contributors to the wellbeing of the research landscape? Several clergy described pastoral care for committee colleagues and secretariat staff, by virtue of regular contact with them. This was implicit and automatic pastoral work. Care for researchers and participants whom the HREC members will never meet, is also natural pastoral work and a clear driver for clergy in their appointments.

Serving HRECs also provides clergy with a window to unfolding knowledge, a forward-looking perspective, regular use of critical faculties not always appreciated in congregational work, intelligent company, confidential settings in which they can be full participants without any oversight from their hierarchies resulting in contributions that don’t need to follow predictable, dogmatic lines, and a chance to serve beyond the faith or denomination. Australia has encoded high standards for itself in the research domain. Participants in my research were clear that high ethical research standards fit congruently into their understanding of their ministry work and several specialise in HREC work as their ministry interest. Many of these have high-level academic qualifications and years of expertise, which are offered repeatedly to the Australian community through HREC service.

Rabbi Dr Aviva Kipen has held Monash University HREC appointments and served on the Victorian Bio-Ethics Advisory Committee. She returned to serve a second term on the Australian Health Ethics Committee of NHMRC in 2019 and has begun the current triennium for the Victorian DHHS HREC. All comments reflect material in the thesis Kipen, A. (2015) Serving God and The Commonwealth of Australia: The Ministry Experiences of Clergy in Victorian Human Research Ethics Committees. Melbourne: University of Divinity.

This post may be cited as:
Kipen, A. (3 November 2019) Clergy service to HRECs: the useful paradox within secular governance of research involving human participants. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/clergy-service-to-hrecs-the-useful-paradox-within-secular-governance-of-research-involving-human-participants

Keywords
Clergy, religion, denomination, ministry, faith

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