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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Good practice

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

We would all benefit from more research integrity research1

 

Paul M Taylor1 and Daniel P Barr2

1Director, Research Integrity, Governance and Systems
Research and Innovation, RMIT University (paul.taylor@rmit.edu.au)

2Acting Director, Office for Research Ethics and Integrity
Research, Innovation and Commercialisation, The University of Melbourne (dpbarr@unimelb.edu.au)

We need more research into research integrity, research misconduct and peer review. This is not a controversial statement, and few would argue against it. So, this is a short blog post then…

It’s worth thinking about why we think that more research into these areas is important and needed. The research that has been reported in the literature is valuable to us and has produced some fascinating insights. We see differences in attitudes in different countries and career stages, and evidence about the impacts of research misconduct. Like all good research, the material already in the literature prompts us to ask more questions than it answers.

But, do we think that the same surveys about the incidence of research misconduct or attitudes to research integrity would reveal the same results for humanities and social science researchers as those in STEM disciplines? Are biomedical researchers in Australia or the UK as likely or more likely to commit research misconduct? Do RCR training packages help prevent misconduct? Is this even what we want RCR training to do? How do we best design and implement research integrity policies? Are principles really better than rules in this context? There’s a handful of grant applications right there!

Perhaps a research integrity ecosystem view would help. What are the challenges that some of the key stakeholders in research integrity are facing and how could research help?

We can start close to home by thinking about the role of institutions in research integrity. The most obvious role of institutions in this area is in responding to allegations of research misconduct. This role is entirely reasonable because of the nature of the relationship between researchers and their workplaces – employment contracts can compel people to provide evidence, and institutions may have better access to data and records that can make the difference in allegations being properly resolved. Certainly compared to other players, institutions are in the best position to consider concerns about the integrity of research. We know that there is not uniformity though in the way institutions respond. Our friends at COPE have talked about the difficulty that publishers face in sometimes even identifying a place to direct concerns. What’s the opportunity for research here? Analysis of institutions to identify traits that are found in ‘good responders’ would help those institutions trying to improve their operations in this area. How critical is the role of senior leadership? What are the impacts, at an institutional level, of a high profile or public misconduct case? How does this impact differ for highly-ranked, ‘too big to fall’ institutions compared with younger organisations? What are the factors that people see that makes them think an institution produces responsible and trustworthy research (if the institution plays that much of a role at all)?

This leads to a second and equally important role for institutions in promoting the importance of responsible and ethical research. It extends way beyond compliance (although this is obviously important). The products of research, as many and varied as they are, must be trustworthy because of the positive impacts that we all hope research will have. So, if an institution decided it wanted to revamp its research governance framework or Code of Conduct for Research, what should it focus on? What evidence do we have, in the research context, to support the idea of Codes of Conduct? Are high-level, principles-based documents that cover most research disciplines useful or are more discipline-focussed rules-based governance structures more effective? How do institutions best engender a strong culture of research integrity?

The role of training here is intuitive and probably right, but can we show that this makes a difference and results in more trustworthy, higher quality research, or does it just make us feel better? Publishers and funders too could benefit from the added insights that research would reveal. Perhaps for both of these players, understanding better the pitfalls of peer review, or development of rigorous alternative models? Research into peer review is already happening, but there could and should be more. What is the best way to distribute mostly decreasing pools of funds to highly competitive funding applicants? How consistent is the decision-making of grant review panels or journal editors? How influential are locations or institutions and ‘big names’ on manuscript or grant review processes and should all reviews be double-blind? Decisions based on peer review are intrinsic and integral to the research process. We should thoroughly understand how these processes are working and what we should do to try and make them work better.

The final group to talk about here are the researchers themselves, perhaps the most important part of the research integrity ecosystem. Given an opportunity, most researchers enjoy talking about the way research works and their own research practice. Listening to conversations between microbiologists and historians about publication rates and funding challenges, data generation and curation, and team research or sole-trader models is intriguing and very interesting. Research about attitudes towards research integrity and how it fits (or doesn’t fit) the way researchers do their research would be valuable. Fundamentally, researchers critically assess new or existing information to find new ideas or solutions. It should come as no surprise when the same critical assessment is applied to proposals for them to reconsider the way they do their research. ‘Research integrity research’ would help to support changes in behaviour that increase the trustworthiness and quality of research. This is really the goal of research integrity.

There’s no shortage of questions to answer. There’s growing awareness of research integrity as a discipline in it’s own right (perhaps it the ultimate interdisciplinary research area). There’s new places for this research to be found (like Research Integrity and Peer Review). The benefits are compelling and clear. What are we waiting for? *Paul is a member of the Editorial Board of Research Integrity and Peer Review. Aside from that, neither Paul nor Dan have any conflicts of interest to disclose, but they hope to in the near future.

This blog may be cited as:
Taylor P and Barr DP. (2016, 10 May) We would all benefit from more research integrity research. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/benefit-research-integrity-research

A Note on the Importance of Sensitising the Novice Researcher to the Realities of Ethics in Practice0

 

Discussions of research ethics have begun to centre increasingly on how research guidelines translate into ethical practice during the research process. In the paper which prompted the invitation to contribute to this blog (McEvoy, Enright & MacPhail, 2015), my experiences as a novice researcher conducting focus group interviews with a group of young people are illustrated and discussed. The consequence of a limited experiential base in research and not having previously read deeply on the topic of research ethics was that I encountered difficulties in recognising or determining the best course of action when faced with what Guillemin and Gillam (2004, p. 263) refer to as ‘ethically important moments’ in the research situation.

It is clear that unless researchers are sensitised to how research practices such as confidentiality, informed consent, etc. manifest in research encounters, on-the-spot decisions can test the veracity of a research project’s ethical promises. I am certainly not suggesting that experienced researchers hold the monopoly on research ethics, or that it is not possible for novice researchers to behave ethically. Rather, due to the immediacy of ethically important moments it is often a researcher’s instincts or reflexes which are operative. Therefore, just as when we learn any skill and certain elements become automatic with experience, it is important that researchers starting out on their careers are given every opportunity to develop and challenge their ethical practice in a way that ensures that those elements of their practice which become ingrained have the best chance of being ethically sound.

In reflecting upon the ethically important moments I encountered, and in reading the associated literature, I certainly improved my ethical sensitivity and understanding of how ethics are enacted in practice. However, from the perspective of the research participants in the given project, it was far from ideal that my learning was the product of ethical difficulties in the field. So how might novice researchers hone their skills and reflexes without exposing research participants to the possibility of ethical breaches borne of inexperience? We may certainly begin by providing research students with a wealth of examples of ethical dilemmas, discussing our research encounters with them, what we did or didn’t do, said or didn’t say, and prompting them to question what they would do or say in the given situation. Further, we can ensure that we educate novice researchers regarding the deeper thinking behind the principles of research ethics and the various ethical stances that abound (e.g. virtue ethics, relational ethics, feminist ethics, situational ethics, etc.) so that when faced with a less clear-cut ethical dilemma they will have the resources to adapt to the context by upholding the spirit of a given principle. The immediacy of the research situation requires instant decisions but that same immediacy results in the likelihood that such decisions are in fact the result of that which comes before the research situation itself. It is perhaps in the preparation that ethics is won or lost.

References:

Guillemin, M., and Gillam, L., (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 261.

McEvoy, E., Enright, E., & MacPhail, A. (2015). Negotiating ‘ethically important moments’ in research with young people: Reflections of a novice researcher, Leisure Studies, doi: 10.1080/02614367.2015.1119877

Eileen Mcevoy
PhD student at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland and also works as a research co-ordinator in Ireland. She has co-ordinated research projects at the Physical Education, Physical Activity and Youth Sport (PEPAYS Ireland) Research Centre, as well as various other Irish educational institutions.
epmcevoy@gmail.com

This blog may be cited as:
Mcevoy, E. (2016, 22 April) A Note on the Importance of Sensitising the Novice Researcher to the Realities of Ethics in Practice. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/note-importance-sensitising-novice-researcher-realities-ethics-practice

A place for expedited ethics review of time-critical above-low risk research2

 

“Have you got ethics yet?” is a question asked frequently where health, social and behavioural sciences postgrads gather on campus. The amount of time human research ethics committees take to approve an application is also a common topic of conversation among university staff. Researchers often, it seems, grumble about delays in beginning their data collection while their ethics application awaits approval. As a recently retired chair of an ethics committee I confess that I rarely felt sympathy for these grumblers. Mostly, it seemed to me, they simply failed to plan their research time-line to match the clearly stated realities of the ethics application and approval process. However, I believe that ethics committees need to have in place processes which can take accommodate an important issue in need of research which has arisen unexpectedly and where data collection is time critical—such as following a disaster event where agencies need researchers to be in the field collecting data from those affected before the quality of the information is compromised with the passage of time.

Starting with the 2009 Victorian Black Saturday bushfires (173 deaths, 2029 homes destroyed) I have been involved in several post-bushfire field research interview surveys of affected householders about their pre-fire bushfire risk perceptions, plans and preparations, and their decisions and actions during the fire. The studies were conducted at the request of fire and emergency management agencies. No adverse incidents occurred. The findings have assisted agencies in reviewing and refining their community bushfire safety policies and procedures. A good case can be made that the timely information gained by the post-bushfire interview research has contributed to improved householder bushfire safety.

In the post-bushfire research where I was the chief investigator 2011 – 2014, approval of these above-low risk studies by my university’s Human Ethics Committee was speedy—within 72 hours. Each application was in the form of a modification of an originally-approved application from 2009. However, colleagues across a range of institutions have told me that it would be very difficult for them to undertake similar post-disaster research because of the time that would be required to obtain approval of such above-low risk research from their human research ethics committee. Concerned about this apparent situation, I decided to investigate how many Australian university human research ethics committees (UHRECs) had provisions for expedited review of above-low risk research.

In a collaboration with the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, I sent a short survey questionnaire to all 39 Australian UHRECs in mid-2014. There were 28 responses (72%). Nine (32%) of the 28 reported having provisions for expedited review of above-low risk research; four described formal arrangements, five described ad hoc arrangements at the Chair’s discretion. Nineteen (68%) had no such provisions. Six of these 19 (32%) described possibilities if the circumstances were sufficiently compelling, the remaining 13 stated simply that they had no such provision. Six UHRECs described preferred arrangements for researchers to submit a generic application well in advance of an actual event and obtain provisional approval, and then submit a detailed application for modification when the specifics were known. A detailed report of findings is at http://www.bnhcrc.com.au/publications/biblio/bnh-1881

I believe that UHRECs which have no provisions for expedited review of above-low risk research do their institution, and the wider society, a disservice.

Jim McLennan is an adjunct professor in the School of Psychology and Public Health at La Trobe University, Melbourne. You can access Jim’s La Trobe University profile here and he can be contacted at J.McLennan@latrobe.edu.au.

This blog may be cited as:
McLennan, J. (2016, 22 February) A place for expedited ethics review of time-critical above-low risk research. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/uncategorized/a-place-for-expedited-ethics-review-of-time-critical-above-low-risk-research

Taking Time in the Midst of a Crisis: Prior Informed Consent, Sociability and Vulnerability in Ethnographic Research3

 

As an anthropologist, the way I work has particular features which are, in my view, both empowering and paralysing. This is especially the case when working with people who define themselves or who are defined as vulnerable, and in field contexts which are challenging, difficult or unpredictable. In this post, I would like to address Prior Informed Consent procedures as an example of the ethical challenges that I need to address in my new project which aims to interact and collaborate with one of the most vulnerable populations entering the European Union today: undocumented pregnant refugees and migrants.

My ERC-funded project, entitled ‘Intimate Encounters in EU Borderlands: Migrant Maternity, Sovereignty and the Politics of Care on Europe’s Peripheries’ is a comparative study of maternity care delivery towards undocumented pregnant migrants in EU Borderlands. Research will be carried out in 7 maternity care services located in the densely crossed borderlands of 4 EU Member States. Most of the maternity care services in question are in the Mediterranean, in Italy, Spain and Greece, but two field sites are also located in Overseas France, in French Guiana and Mayotte (in South America and in the Indian Ocean respectively). All of the field sites are to be found on Europe’s external borders, in remote peripheries which have very specific social and economic identities in relation to the rest of the country. My main interest lies in studying doctor-patient interaction from a moral and biographical point of view, and in documenting life in these peripheries from the perspectives of the full range of actors involved. Ethnographic data will be collected during a 16 months long fieldwork period which will span the second and third years of the project, and which will involve all project team members (that is myself and three other researchers).

Research will be carried out through long-term participant observation of everyday life in the field locations. Commitment to the research from all research participants will have to be total, as my team and myself will have to physically move (taking our families along with us) to the field sites for the whole duration of the fieldwork. Working times will vary according to circumstances, but could involve day and night-time work, every day of the week. This kind of research requires flexibility, adaptability and resilience.

Long-term participant observation is peculiar: it is an ecosystem of its own, which may appear intense and exotic, but which often feels awkward, lonely and frustrating. Time takes on a different texture and daily routines are upset by the turns of events. Building social relations based on amity at first, and trust in the long-term with a wide range of people is not generally something which can happen overnight. For this reason I am convinced that when working with vulnerable subjects, the investment of time affords a great advantage in contributing to ethically-sound research.

Anthropologists approaching a field site have to prepare their fieldwork through an extensive, collaborative, multi-level process of introduction, presentation, authorisation and consent, which works concurrently at communal and individual level. It is very common to hear that for anthropologists fieldwork starts at home, as they slowly gather the first contacts and points of reference, through which they will seek affiliations, authorisations, permits, and translate their research objectives according to the audiences they deal with.

As anthropologists, our entry into a field context often follows a gradual scoping process based on information and presentation, which navigates several levels of leadership and authority. Only once all authorisations are cleared can fieldwork at community-level begin. And from community-level, one can approach individuals or family units. Because the personal and emotional involvement of fieldwork is so high, the social bonds which develop through long-term fieldwork are deep and long-lasting. In this context, consent in research is to be considered as a flexible, long-term commitment to the well-being of the source communities, and their regular updating on the progress of the research. This commitment can last a lifetime.

In the context of my new research project, a good proportion of the persons I will be working with belong to a highly mobile and invisible population with whom the nurture of social bonds may not be easy to maintain, to say the least. My ERC-funded project includes, among other research participants, undocumented migrants. Some of these migrants will be pregnant, others may be minors, and some will be both. This means that they represent another category of vulnerability than people I had been previously working with who belong to remote ethnic minorities (I have been working with Amerindian communities of northern Amazonia in Suriname and French Guiana since 2003). The social and political contexts in which research is carried out are always shifting, and there is no single definition of vulnerability, nor one single form of social interaction during ethnographic fieldwork. Approaching each specific social context requires good prior knowledge and a great deal of flexibility. For instance the pregnant patients I might have to interview are generally likely to have higher levels of literacy than the indigenous women with whom I was sharing the intimacy of daily life in the interior of Suriname. It may be easier to establish some form of initial communication, since there are likely to be more common cultural references. Personal, emotional and physical circumstances may however be extremely different. Moreover, whereas I have been working since 2005 in clinical contexts, these can vary greatly, and medical environments can be extremely hierarchical structures in which self-determination and agency can be challenged by the most simple acts.

In such challenging research environments, single solutions are impossible to envisage as circumstances can change very rapidly. As others have noted, ‘prior informed consent of research participants does not in itself make human-subject research ethical’ (Rosenthal 2006: 119), nor does it guarantee that all research participants and other human subjects will behave ethically. Obtaining prior informed consent in such challenging contexts first of all requires time. Having time to use the appropriate channels to seek authorisations in due course, to develop an extensive web of social contacts, and only gradually to approach the most vulnerable research participants. To ensure as independent and unbiased a process as possible, researchers in the field have to be aware of local circumstances and dynamics, and resist the temptation to rush into a challenging research environment currently at the centre of a media frenzy over what is often portrayed as an escalating EU migration crisis.

Reading a newspaper in Italy – and any other EU Member State for that matter – is a painful experience. I am constantly exposed to images of despair and tragedy unfolding in my country’s territorial waters. I often feel like rushing there to finally get started documenting the voice of those who remain invisible, but rushing is not the way to go about it, despite the climate of crisis and urgency. Ethically-sound research takes time, even more so in the midst of a crisis.

Reference:

Rosenthal, J. 2006. ‘Politics, Culture, and Governance in the Development of Prior Informed Consent in Indigenous Communities’, Current Anthropology 47(1): 119-142.

Vanessa Grotti
European University Institute
Vanessa’s EUI page
Vanessa.Grotti@EUI.eu

This blog may be cited as:
Grotti, V. (2016, 26 January) Taking the Time in the Midst of a Crisis: Prior Informed Consent, Sociability and Vulnerability in Ethnographic Research. AHRECS Blog. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/taking-the-time-in-the-midst-of-a-crisis-prior-informed-consent-sociability-and-vulnerability-in-ethnographic-research

0