In this post Gary Allen and Mark Israel discuss seeding and supporting virtual and physical Communities of Practice and their value over enforcement and policing.
Gary Allen and Mark Israel
Research ethics professionals have grown wary of researchers who talk disparagingly about the work of research ethics reviewers as the ‘ethics police’ (Klitzman, 2015; Makhoul et al., 2014). So, there is more than a little irony in our suggestion for responding constructively to such an adversarial stance (Allen & Israel, 2018) – the Community of Practice (CoP).
A CoP is characterised by a shared area of knowledge and set of practices within which experiences and insights can be shared and learning can be fostered (Wenger et al., 2002). Done well, a CoP can result in continual improvement across and…
Gary Allen and Mark Israel reflect on constructive approaches to languages in human research and for research ethics committees.
Gary Allen and Mark Israel
Much human research is conducted in languages that are not the same as that used by the research ethics review body or the chief investigators. This can manifest in a number of ways including:
Recruitment and consent materials;
Data collection tools (surveys, interview instruments and observation matrices), and
return of results to participants
There is literature on the ethics of interpreting and translation (Drugan, 2017) as well as on the ethics of research in those fields (Tiselius, 2019). However, for our purposes, we want to focus on the first two situations…
We note that the journal, Research Ethics, is now Open Access. https://journals.sagepub.com/description/rea
Research Ethics is aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in the conduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research. The journal aims to promote, provoke, host and engage in open and public debate about research ethics on an international scale but also to contribute to the education of researchers and reviewers of research…
All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors.
Frequent visitors to the website of AHRECS will have noticed a change to the library of images we use across the site (e.g. the Resource Library and the Research Ethics Monthly).
We did this to refresh our library of images at the same time as we updated nearly all sections of our website.
We have also made the conscious decision to remove the watermark from our images. As a result, it should be easier for the human research ethics and research integrity community to find useful images for your needs.
Many Australian research bodies link to the National Statement. They do so through websites, policy documents, professional development material and other resources.
This is logical and makes it easier for researchers and others to access the national policy/guidance material.
Another reason to do this is that it makes it easier for researchers to see the external impetus for the institution’s arrangements and provides a source of further information and guidance.
Let’s start with fire safety. Used correctly, fire blankets (and other fire protection equipment) can manage a hazard and prevent increased harm. Institutions have a regulatory responsibility to make staff aware of standards by providing training in fire safety and correct behaviour.
While in Australia there is no human research ethics legislation, the National Statement is generally recognised as the national standard for human research ethics. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is the national standard for research integrity. Similarly, researchers need to be aware of the institution’s and national policies, procedures and arrangements with regards to human research ethics/research integrity (NS 3.47, AC Researcher Responsibility 16).
Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson|
In the 1980s and 1990s, many research institutions made the principled and commendable decision not to accept funding from the tobacco industry.
This reflected the recognition of the awful health impacts of tobacco use and the degree to which the industry was muddying the waters of public debate with academic and clinical research questioning the veracity of the overwhelming body of evidence that clearly showed the dire dangers of activity such as smoking. While we continue to be shocked by cases such those like the research of Hans J Eysenck (and this), for the main it is accepted that receiving funding from the tobacco industry is not in the public’s best interest.
As both a researcher and a research administrator in healthcare, one of the more vexing issues that I have to deal with on an almost daily basis is how to manage what are termed quality assurance, quality improvement and audit activities. In its 2014 publication entitled “Ethical Considerations in Quality Assurance and Evaluation Activities”, the NHMRC (NHMRC QA guidance) suggests that these can be loosely gathered together under an umbrella term of Quality Assurance (QA) and/or evaluation. I believe this construct is wrong and reinforces a longstanding approach to ethics review that relies on the category of an investigative activity to determine the level of review that is used. This approach is problematic and leads to some significant unintended consequences.
Red Thaddeus D. Miguel According to the Belmont Report (1979), respect for persons incorporates two
When it comes to research integrity, the international community often tends to focus on
It is with great sorrow that we note the passing of one of our
In human research, some groups of people (grouped by identity, association, condition and/or location)