ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Generic filters
Filter by Keywords
Research ethics committees
Research integrity

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Ethical review

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Proportional processes can sometimes be the answer to a few (apparently competing) problems0


But they shouldn’t equate to abridged consideration

Dr Gary Allen | AHRECS senior consultant | Profile
Professor Mark Israel 
| AHRECS senior consultant | Profile
Professor Colin Thomson AM
 | AHRECS senior consultant | Profile


There are three things that we have consistently found when we have conducted desktop audits of human research ethics arrangements:

  1. Researchers believe the manner in which their interactions with their institution’s human research ethics arrangements are being treated is disproportional to the real risks and ethical sensitivity of their work. Symptoms include delays waiting for the next meeting of the research ethics committee and lengthy forms, which seem excessive for a project that might be following the well-established practice in a discipline. For busy researchers, this seems to confirm their suspicion that the research ethics committee is indifferent to the nature and value of the project and the process is about policing their conduct and catching them in wrongdoing. This perception can be especially acute in disciplines other than those in health sciences and clinical trials and is particularly prevalent for participant-directed designs. We have written about the dangers of this adversarial climate (Israel et al., 2016), and as consultants have advised many research institutions on how to tackle it.
  2. Research ethics committees(and research office staff) talk of being overwhelmed with work (and sometimes paper), struggling to find time to focus properly on the most risky and ethically challenging projects, and being left with insufficient resources to conduct professional development or other constructive activities that could improve ethical practice (design, review, conduct or reporting). One of the common complaints of review bodies who are overwhelmed by their workload is that matters would be improved if more researchers were more familiar with and understood the requirements and submitted better applications.

Reviewers and researchers commonly point to the other as the source of the problem and insist only change to the other party’s attitudes will fix the ‘ethics problem’.

The irony is that a suite of related strategies can fix both these behaviours. Rather than one party changing and the other ‘prevailing’, if both change cooperatively and the functioning of human research ethics arrangements shifts to a more positive approach, the process can facilitate research and achieve the objective of resourcing reflective practice.

This article is not about a proportional research ethics review arrangement (a piece on that will be in the Research Ethics Monthlyincluding discussion about constructive review feedback). Instead, this piece is about proportional processes, which complement research ethics review. And, this is linked with our third finding.

  1. Institutional risk concerns appear to be associated with any delegation of these matters to a process outside of the research ethics committee.

Those processes relate to the consideration of:

  1. applicant responses to review feedback,
  2. ethical conduct reports, and
  3. variation requests.

Figure 1 This image (without the watermark) is available to USD3+ Patrons

The default position for consideration on those matters should be processing outside the research ethics committee, such as panel review (a small group of committee members via email), executive review (by the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson) or administrative review. Full research ethics committee review should be reserved for the most risky and ethically sensitive of projects.

In our experience, it is common for institutions to include these items on the research ethics committee agenda. The purpose of this can be unclear: is it for ratification or notification? And are all committee members expected to consider these? In our view, this is often impractical: these matters typically need to be considered in the context of the whole project, a context that committee members cannot be expected to retain or revisit. Provided adequate records of the panel or executive consideration are kept, committee agendas may need to include these items only when the ethics consideration merits committee consideration.

AHRECS has been able to assist clients to define triggers for the processing pathways, stage transition towards the ultimate delegated review and establish the required record keeping. We have also assisted small/early journey institutions to set thresholds (soft and hard) that would trigger transitioning from the point at which all matters are considered by the research ethics committee to the implementation of delegated processing. In this way, change is proactive and stays ahead of the predictable rise in workload.

In the AHRECS subscribers’ area, USD10+ Patrons can access suggested criteria for the delegated processing of (b) and (c) from the list above.

If implemented correctly, this approach should help:

  1. Researchersperceive the process as far more relevant, reasonable and client focussed. They also should have a clearer appreciation of the triggers for higher review.
  2. Research ethics committees have more time and capacity to concentrate on genuinely risky cases, to be involved in professional development and to formulate policies and resources.
  3. Institutional risk concerns are alleviated by having transparent criteria for escalated consideration and reduced reasons for researchers to avoid the processes.


Israel, M, Allen, G & Thomson, C (2016) Australian Research Ethics Governance: Plotting the Demise of the Adversarial Culture. In van den Hoonaard, W & Hamilton, A (eds) The Ethics Rupture: Exploring Alternatives to Formal Research-Ethics Review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp285-316.ISBN 9781442626089


Dr Mark Bahr, Chair of Bond University Human Research Ethics and Assistant Professor Psychology

Communication is the key to much of what we do in any part of our lives. Much of the time what is said and what is heard are very different things… communication and a shared understanding of our roles in reviewing and conducting research is vital, and as indicated often misunderstood through the lens of our role. There is a clear need to establish trust at the three levels indicated in the article. Where there is a reasonable understanding of the role of each group, institutional risk managers, research ethics committees and researchers there is plenty of scope for alternate models of review for certain types of low-risk review. For example, where research methods are being taught using authentic assessment methods with clearly defined limits there is scope for flexible review especially when a process is in place for escalation to a greater level of scrutiny when called for.

One difficulty with all review is the evaluation of risk, it is clear that we each appreciate risk differently. Appreciation of risk in the study and indeed the benefit of the study varies with the beholder. There is no intrinsic issue with proportional approaches but the setting of thresholds is an important consideration. One of the concerns I would have in perhaps the intermediate-term is that what starts off as a flexible framework with responsive settings, over time tends to drift towards rigidity. We need to be vigilant that we don’t drift in that direction.

Shara Close, Manager, Research Integrity & Ethics, Charles Darwin University

Broadly from my experience over the last five-plus years working in the research integrity and ethics space – both pre- and post-implementation of proportional review – the introduction of expedited review processes and streamlining of the administrative functions associated with HREC review has drastically shifted attitudes and the ‘adversarial climate’ associated with ethics review at the University. Colleagues joining the University post-implementation have commented on how peculiar it is to find such positive attitudes towards ethics review. We now find ourselves focusing on more nuanced issues regarding improving engagement with researchers and improving applications in an effort to increase the number of high-quality applications that are ‘approved first go’ or with only very minor adjustments.

Laura Thorncraft, Research Ethics Coordinator, Charles Darwin University

Our proportional process gives researchers a sense of choice and control over the review of their proposals. The researcher nominates the risk level and justifies the risks, so they make a case for proportional review that is treated seriously by research admin staff. It’s relatively rare that proposals are escalated. I think this feeds into the article’s first point about perceptions and adversarial relationships, and something that we do quite well.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G., Israel, M. & Thomson,  C. (23 July 2019) Proportional processes can sometimes be the answer to a few (apparently competing) problems. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from:

Research Ethics Review as a Box-Ticking Exercise0


Associate Professor Angela Romano | Faculty Research Ethics Adviser, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology


My role as a university Research Ethics Advisor involves an interesting range of activities, although sadly there is less actual advising than I would like. As Faculty Research Ethics Advisor (FREA) for the Queensland University of Technology’s Creative Industries Faculty, I review ethics applications for a wide variety of projects, ranging from negligible risk to high risk; manage a team of six Research Ethics Advisors, who review applications for projects with negligible to low risk; conduct training workshops and drop-in sessions for researchers to seeking advice research ethics; and answer queries about multitudinous ethics-related issues.

In practice, however, most of my work relates to checking ethics applications that are submitted in order to ensure that they are ready for review, then overseeing the review process and completing the associated paperwork. Since I commenced the FREA’s role almost a year ago, I have tried to increase the number and depth of conversations with colleagues and research students about broader issues of ethics, rather than simply how to complete an application. I see the culture changing, but most discussion continues to be initiated by an onus to complete ethics applications and focuses on application requirements.

A long-held critique voiced by Western scholars about the review of human research ethics is that the process is excessively focussed on box ticking and bureaucratic compliance rather than meaningful deliberation about ethical issues (Floyd & Arthur, 2012; Johnsson et al., 2014; Schrag, 2011). Sociology and law professor Gresham Sykes forecast this problem more than 50 years ago when he noted: ‘There is the danger that an institutional review committee might become a mere rubber stamp, giving the appearance of a solution, rather than the substance, for a serious problem of growing complexity which requires continuing discussion’ (Sykes, 1967, p. 11).

Many contemporary research articles about human research ethics boards and review processes decry this so-called box ticking or rubber stamp mentality, but usually these articles discuss review boards or processes without considering the mindset of researchers themselves. As a FREA at a major Australian university, I see substantive numbers of researchers who would actually welcome a more rudimentary ‘tick and flick’ process, with short, simple forms that would promptly grant them a rubber stamp of institutional endorsement.

I have witnessed this attitude in many research teams in which research assistants, project managers or research students are given primary or sole responsibility for research ethics and the writing of ethics applications, with little to no input or oversight from team supervisors or leaders. Such conduct would not be tolerated in any other area of research activity. Those same research team leaders would never request their research assistant to write an application for a major research grant, ask their project manager to draft an article for a respected journal, or instruct one of their master’s or doctoral students to submit a report for Confirmation of Candidature or other major study milestone without a senior team member providing major input and checking the text prior to submission. Ethics applications are not directly attached to any KPIs, so these researchers simply do not see the writing of an ethics application as warranting the same level of attention.

At an institutional level, there is substantial variation among research leaders and administrators in their grasp of the principles of research ethics and their fondness for a box ticking approach. In my discussions with staff from different universities, I have heard numerous research leaders argue research ethics advisors and reviewers should ‘stick to ethics and stop providing feedback about methods’. The head of one research centre leader told me in all seriousness that ethics committees should not request amendments in an ethics application if their review processes reveal that ‘the project sucks’ as long as there were no ‘ethical problems’ such as risk of harm to participants.

One academic who held one of the most senior research leadership positions in his university was surprised when I explained to him that researchers could not simply state what methodology they were using , such as focus groups, then be given a checklist of the ethical risks that applied to that particular methodology. He told me that he had not realised the ethics committees needed to know details about the exact methods being used, nor had he previously considered that the risks relating to each element of the project might change according to numerous contextual factors, such as the topic being studied, the location of research, the nature of recruitment, and the age, education levels, employment and cultures of participants.

Such comments indicate a perspective about research ethics that is fundamentally at odds with the approach that is outlined in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research(2018), which sets standards for human research in Australia. The National Statement is based on the premise that research ethics and methods are inextricably linked. Itdefines ‘merit and integrity’ as essential components of ethical research (Section 1). For a research project to have merit and integrity, it must be designed ‘using methods appropriate for achieving the aims of the proposal’; be conducted by researchers with ‘experience, qualifications and competence that are appropriate for the research’; and be supported by ‘facilities and resources appropriate for the research’ (Section 1.1). Section 3.1 outlines ethical issues in seven overlapping phases that occur in most human research, these being ‘Recruitment’, ‘Consent’, ‘Collection, Use and Management of Data and Information’, ‘Communication of Research Findings or Results to Participants’, ‘Dissemination of Research Outputs and Outcomes’ and ‘After the Project’.

It is hard to see how any research leader who is familiar with the National Statementcould define human research that ‘sucks’ or has manifest methodological problems as ‘ethical’, yet I have encountered this mindset surprisingly often. From my observation, scholars who believe that there is only a limited connection between research methods and ethics will also often express simplified notions about ethics assurance and demonstrate a fondness for ticking boxes and using cut-and-paste responses.

A number of scholars have argued that rather than rely on box ticking and a culture of enforcement through form filling, research institutions should build reflective practice about research integrity by developing resources and supporting professional development (Allen & Israel, 2018; Israel & Drenth, 2016). I agree with that perspective, but believe those researchers who favour a box ticking approach will have no impetus to change until their employers and funding institutions demonstrate that they value and reward a reflective approach to ethics in the same way that they show they value and reward successful grant applications, research publications or research student completions.


Allen, G., & Israel, M. (2018). Moving Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Building Institutional Support for Ethical Reflection in Research. In R. Iphofen & M. Tolich (eds). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics (pp. 276-289). London: Sage.

Floyd, A., & Arthur, L. (2012). Researching from within: External and internal ethical engagement. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 35(2), 171-180. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2012.670481

Israel, M., & Drenth, P. (2016). Research Integrity: Perspectives from Australia and Netherlands. Handbook of Academic Integrity, 789-808.

Johnsson, L., Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G., & Hansson, M. G. (2014). Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Research Ethics, 10(1), 29-46. doi: 10.1177/1747016113504778

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (Updated 2018). The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Schrag, Z. (2011). The case against ethics review in the social sciences. Research Ethics, 7, 120-131. doi: 10.1177/174701611100700402

Sykes, G.M. (1967). Feeling our way: A report on a conference on ethical issues in the social sciences. American Behavioral Scientist, 10(10), 8-11.

This post may be cited as:
Romano, A. (22 June 2019) Research Ethics Review as a Box-Ticking Exercise Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from:

“Reminder about service options and an easy way to pay AHRECS,” we say… aware of how corporate sleazy that sounds0


Dr Gary Allen, Senior Consultants AHRECS
Prof. Mark Israel
Prof. Colin Thomson AM

Just in time for the end of the financial year (though we know many research institutions budget around calendar year), AHRECS has the capacity to receive payments by credit card. We thought this a good time to remind you of those of our services that lend themselves nicely to credit card payment.

In-meeting 30-minute professional development for HREC members ($900) – Workshops/briefings/guided discussion about your selected topic.  An easy way to tick the HREC member training box with minimum interruption to the work of a busy committee.  An experienced AHRECS team member will provide a PowerPoint with pre-recorded audio that could be played in a meeting (and retained for five years for viewing by absent and new members); the team member will ‘phone or Zoom into the meeting for Q&A/discussion. If so AHRECS can also record that component for your later use.

Access the new subscription area ($360) – Thank you to everyone who expressed interest and support for the new in-house subscribers’ area.  This is scheduled to go live in July/August.  By subscribing, you will get access to an impressive (and growing) set of HRE and RI resources that are Creative Commons so you can use them within your organisations as much as you want.

Bespoke webinar for your research community ($1500) – A one-hour webinar on a human research ethics or research integrity topic of your choice, tailored to your institution. The price allows for up to 200 attendees and provision of a recording for your later use.

3-hour orientation workshop for new RIAs ($2300) – Provide your new Research Integrity Advisers with a practical, topical and engaging orientation through this four-hour workshop.

Ten hours of on-call advice ($3400) – On-call advice can be used for both human research ethics and research integrity advice.  We can offer advice on everything from review feedback on a difficult application to commenting on a draft policy and providing advice on a tricky question with which the committee has been struggling.  In the research integrity space, we can suggest an appropriate investigation approach for an alleged breach, comment on a RI resource, or suggest references on a key topic.  The purchased time can be used in 15min, 30min, 1h, 4h and 8h blocks

Send an email to gary.allen@ahrecs.comif you have any questions.

The prices above exclude GST and a 2% credit card processing fee

Is it something I said (or the way I said it)?0

Posted by Admin in Human Research Ethics on May 29, 2019 / Keywords: ,

Dr Gary Allen, Senior Consultants AHRECS
Prof. Mark Israel
Prof. Colin Thomson AM

Reflecting on review feedback

Feedback from the research ethics review of a project is often one of the first interactions between a researcher and a research ethics committee. It helps define, and can permanently tarnish, the relationship between an institution’s committee and research community – for good, or for bad. So, it’s centrally important to an effective ethics research culture.

Unfortunately, typically, it only receives cursory attention in national human research ethics arrangements and institutional policy. It does not feature highly in review body member training, standard operating procedures or the orientation of secretaries and chairpersons.

Having worked with many review bodies during the last few decades, we thought it might be helpful to share some ideas and experiences.

1 NATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS– review feedback should be based clearly upon the relevant national arrangements: these provide the justification for the feedback and establish a neutral ground on which to resolve differences. For example, in Australia it should be located in and cite a provision of the National Statement (see Common Missteps 6).

Feedback on revision should make its ethical consideration explicit if it is not based on national or institutional policies. (Dr Gan Zhen-Rong, Human Research Ethics Committee, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan)

2 INSTUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS– when the host institution’s policy or procedures discuss a matter relevant to the project being reviewed, the review feedback should be located in and cite those arrangements.

3 GUIDANCE MATERIAL– A valuable role can be played by guidance material, such as suggesting ways a national/institutional policy can be applied in a situation, or how a researcher might justify an alternative. The Griffith University Research Ethics Manual (GUREM) is one such document, which Griffith University has licensed[1] so other institutions can copy and modify its booklets to create its own resource manual.

4 FACILITATION AS A CORE OBJECTIVE– A central objective of research ethics review is facilitating the ethical conduct of research. This can be promoted by constructive feedback with clear explanations and prompts (for what is needed to satisfy the committee) and how the matter can be resolved.

Research regulators in general, including HRECs, have not only a responsibility to uphold the principles of the regulatory ‘ecosystem’, but must ensure and enable a ‘growth mindset’ that fundamentally has the research participant at its core… fostering and nurturing novice researchers as well as redirecting and upskilling seasoned researchers is vital. To this end, removing a punitive viewpoint and replacing it with an opportunity to educate and highlight the principles of the framework is required.  Not only will it foster a strong collaborative research culture, after all we are all on it for the participants’ benefit, but such an approach will assist in removing the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mindset that currently pits researchers against research administrators. (Sonia Hancock, Manager, Research Integrity and Compliance, Metro South Health Research, Queensland)

We do this at CQU (Chair chats [with researchers about specific items in their proposal]), it promotes a collegial interaction between HREC and researchers and actually reduces workload for the committee as applications don’t bounce around. (Prof. Tania Signal, Chair, Central Queensland University Human Research Ethics Committee)

It’s really important to have a review process that models the respect that the committee would want the applicants to show to participants in the research. (Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald, University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee, New Zealand).


5 ‘BECAUSE WE ALWAYS INSIST ON THIS’ – When crafting review feedback, a  review body should be wary of matters that do not adhere to one of the above, but are consistently included in the review body’s feedback to applicants, primarily because the committee always insists upon it. Ignoring the circular logic, if there is no other basis for the feedback item (see above), it is almost certainly time to change that habit.

Too often committees can lose sight of the differences in context, participant populations and the myriad other variables that make it difficult to apply precedents. The principles and values of committee members (within the context of applicable regulations and legislation) should drive review. (Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald, University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee, New Zealand

Some review bodies still insist on participants signing a consent form (see Wynn and Israel, 2018). Fetishising such standards is dismissive of the agency of potential participants, is excessively paternalistic and may also create a barrier to participation for some demographic groups. There may be circumstances where such practices are warranted, but it should not be an automatic requirement. And don’t get us started on insisting on witness signatures on consent forms.

Discussion of what the National Statement actually requires can also be used to show how familiarity with, rather than prescriptive use of, the National Statement can avoid unnecessarily constraining ethical research.  References to such passages as paragraph 2.2.4 and this paragraph on p.11 of the National Statement speaks to this idea:

These ethical guidelines are not simply a set of rules. Their application should not be mechanical. It always requires, from each individual, deliberation on the values and principles, exercise of judgement, and an appreciation of context.

6 FIXATING ON ONE PROVISION RATHER THAN THE WIDER MESSAGE– In circumstances when a review body is working from a detailed set of arrangements (such as the National Statement (2007 updated 2018) in Australia) there is a danger the review body will focus on one provision, while missing the wider intention of a section. This bad habit can easily become a standard requirement of the review body (see 5). For example, some well-meaning review bodies can insist recruitment material and consent material are depersonalised, written in the passive so that friendly courtesy is removed even from interaction involving peers.  Review bodies may believe in so doing they are faithfully applying NS item 2.2.1 (consent needs to be voluntary) and avoiding language that might be seen as persuasive and therefore in some way manipulative. In doing so they are ignoring NS 2.2.3 and 5.2.17 (be relevant to the participants’ circumstances). Some review bodies still insist on participants signing a consent form (see Wynn and Israel, 2018). Fetishising such standards is dismissive of the agency of potential participants, is excessively paternalistic and may also create a barrier to participation for some demographic groups. There may be circumstances where such practices are warranted, but it should not be an automatic requirement.

7 PROOFREADING– A review body should not spend more than a few moments of meeting time/words in the review feedback proofreading recruitment/consent material or a data collection instrument. Instead the review body should indicate proofreading is required, provide some examples and indicate there are more requiring attention. Consideration of the revised material should be delegated and handled outside a later meeting.

8 MANY WAYS TO SOLVE A PROBLEM– There is rarely only one solution to an ethical challenge (so there can be difference of view between researchers and reviewers). In addition to project-specific matters such as conventions of the (sub)discipline, methodology, potential participant pool and contextual considerations, there can be more than one ethically acceptable solution. Consequently, a feedback item should not imply there is only one way to tackle a problem.

Committees need to be genuinely open to rebuttal or alternate approaches from researchers if that argument is couched within the framework of the National Statement. (Prof. Tania Signal, Chair, Central Queensland University Human Research Ethics Committee)

Too often committees can lose sight of the differences in context, participant populations and the myriad other variables that make it difficult to apply precedents. The principles and values of committee members (within the context of applicable regulations and legislation) should drive review. (Lindsey MacDonald, University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee)

9 RISK-AVERSE– The review body should take care to ensure (and reflect on over time) its decisions to ensure they aren’t overly risk-averse or conservative.

— TIPS —

10 POSITIVE FEEDBACK– Learn from the broader literature on effective feedback and identify a component of the proposed project to compliment, such as the importance of the research question, the care and thought demonstrated by the approach to a problem, the described respectful approach to a participant cohort, or perhaps thoroughly addressing a matter that was missed by the applicants in earlier proposals.

Common courtesies go a long way within ethics processes. Thank applicants for applying for review committee, start most requests with ‘please… (comment/consider/explain)’, and rephrase demands as questions. In my experience adding those phrases help to soften even harsh criticism of applications, so that productive – not defensive – relationships thrive between the committee and researchers. Encouraging researchers to ring the Chair as soon as they have a problem with a committee’s feedback was the single most important time-saving device for my time as chair  – a minute or two on the phone is so much more constructive than emails. (Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald, University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee, New Zealand)

11 NOT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL– If a review body is aware a matter is beyond its remit but could impact upon the project’s chances of success, its quality or impact, it could be framed in the following way, ‘The following is not a condition of ethics approval, but the reviewers noted… Have the applicants considered this?’.

12 LIMITS OF ETHICS APPROVAL– In some cases, a review body might only feel able to grant approval because of the involvement of a specific individual team member or support service. The implication is that if her/his involvement ends, or the service is no longer available, the project must be paused until alternative arrangements can be made. Similarly, the review body might not want the ethics approval of the project to be seen as a precedent where similar projects without the involvement of that experienced person, or service, will also be approved. In such circumstances, the reasons/limits of the approval should be specified in the review feedback.

13 INVITE REFLECTION– Assuming an applicant has missed a matter or is indifferent to a problem might not only be incorrect, it might make the review process more adversarial. A more positive approach could be: ‘Given the experience of the applicants, <review body> would be interested to hear how you have previously handled… and the degree to which you feel that would be useful in this case.’

14 REAs– If your institution has established a network of collegiate Research Ethics Advisers and the review body is concerned applicants have not understood their responsibilities and/or the review feedback will require considerable explanatory text, the review body could direct the applicants to consult their REA before resubmitting. The Chair (or nominee) could speak with the REA to explain the situation.  If your institution does not have such a network, face to face conversations with researchers, the Chair and/or some committee members can usually achieve agreed resolutions.

15 PILOT TESTING– In circumstances where a review body is uncertain about the described risks/proposed risk mitigation strategy, the review body might suggest a limited pilot test. Such a test might involve a smaller number of participants for a specified period of time, with a view to the researchers reporting back on the actual experience of those matters. The ethics approval could either be converted a full approval or the project modified on the basis of the experienced.

16 CONTINUE TO BUILD YOUR EXPERTISE – No research ethics committee can be experts in everything. Once a committee accepts this, there are various strategies that it can adopt. First, it can engage in collective professional development making sure it receives regular briefings on new methods, disciplines, groups of participants or regulations. In some cases, these can be provided by researchers (either individuals or groups); in others, the committee may need to bring in external expertise. Second, it might increase the size of the committee to add expertise but look for more flexible ways of deploying that membership.

…if a research team is about to begin utilising a new technique/procedure/machine that beeps etc. consider inviting them to provide a short briefing presentation to the HREC ahead of any submissions. This allows a two-way conversation, HREC can highlight issues that will need further consideration and researchers can address misconceptions. (Prof. Tania Signal, Chair, Central Queensland University Human Research Ethics Committee)

17 PROPORTIONAL CONSIDERATION– If the practice of your review committee is that all researcher responses are considered at the next meeting of the review body, consider delegating this task to administrative review, executive review or to a small panel of the review body depending on the level of the review that might be required for any particular case. Perhaps the response should only go back to the review body in the most sensitive of circumstances. Nevertheless, those delegated bodies should be able to escalate the consideration to a higher pathway.

Distinguish between the problems of submitted proposals to see if they reflect substantial ethical issues or just raise minor matters such as failure to provide sufficient information, demonstrate a lack of submission experience or careless editing. If the latter, consider delegating this task to administrative or executive review.(Dr Gan Zhen-Rong, Human Research Ethics Committee, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan)


We want REM to start conversations among its readers. In this issue, we are grateful to Dr Gan Zhen-Rong (National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan), Prof. Tania Signal (Chair of HREC, Central Queensland University), Dr Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald (University of Canterbury) and Sonia Hancock (Metro South Health, Queensland) for providing comments (at short notice) on this article.


Wynn, LL and Israel, M (2018) The Fetishes of Consent: Signatures, Paper and Writing in Research Ethics Review. American Anthropologist120(4) pp795–806.

[1]Dr Gary Allen is the principal author of the GUREM and receives a proportion of all sales, so AHRECS acknowledges the conflicts of interest in mentioning the manual.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G., Israel, M. & Thomson, C. (29  May 2019) Is it something I said (or the way I said it)? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: