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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Researcher responsibilities

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Navigating ‘Research Fatigue’0

 

In human research, some groups of people (grouped by identity, association, condition and/or location) may become over-represented as research subjects in a particular discipline, or in research generally. These people may develop a sense of ‘research fatigue’ (Clark, 2008) – in simple terms, they’ve been over-researched and now they’re just over it. It is likely that a sense of being mistreated by researchers, a lack of trust between participants and researchers/institutions, and/or a failure of research to return any kind of benefit to the participant community, may exacerbate research fatigue. Subsequently, they may be reluctant to participant in any further research (Clark, 2008).

People belonging to marginalised or vulnerable groups may be particularly susceptible to over-research and research fatigue. This is partly because such groups may be identified as having persistent problems social or medical researchers may be hoping to help, and perhaps also because people in these groups have disproportionately suffered from poor and unethical research practices. For example, in Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have frequently been the subjects of research conducted without permission, or without due consideration to appropriate and ethical processes (Knight, Comino, Harris, & Jackson-Pulver, 2009; Martin, 2003).

I conducted my PhD research with an over-researched community. The people of North Stradbroke Island/Minjerribah – particularly (but not exclusively) the Quandamooka and other Indigenous Peoples of the Island -are suffering from research and consultation fatigue, and many had complaints about the way they had been treated by earlier researchers, or the fact that the issues they prioritised were being ignored.

Several months after my field work concluded, a colleague of mine – Rachael Cole-Hawthorne, another PhD student – began her fieldwork on North Stradbroke Island/Minjerribah with the Quandamooka Peoples. She encountered an unanticipated ethical difficulty; participants in my research (or people who had heard about me and my research – it’s a small community and people talk!) sometimes mistook her for me. We were PhD students from the same institution, after all, and bore a passing resemblance to one another. The issue of mistaken identity was always laughed off, however it meant that the anonymity of some of my participants had been unintentionally compromised; if they hadn’t mistook Rachael for me, they may not have mentioned their participation in my project.

It also became clear to Rachael that the success of her research rested, to a degree, on the goodwill I had developed. If I had treated participants poorly, or if they found participation unpleasant or uncomfortable, she may have encountered difficulties in recruitment.

As a result of these experiences, Rachael and I are working together on the topic of ethical research with over-researched communities. Our (very) preliminary thoughts, based on a review of the literature and our research experiences to date, suggest a few key considerations for researchers. Firstly, one should not dismiss the possibility of engaging with an over-researched community on that basis alone, but there is a particular onus on the researcher to justify why this site/these people, including to the participants themselves. Obvious relevance and utility, and clear links to the ‘uniqueness’ of that community that makes them the best pool of participants may help overcome initial wariness (and weariness). There is, perhaps, extra impetus to demonstrate a genuine commitment to the over-researched group, and focus additional attention on the building and maintaining of relationships. For me, this included spending as much time as I could on the Island, for blocks of time, rather than making day trips or just talking to people on the phone. Finding ways to connect potential participants to the research topic, and finding ways to deliver meaningful and useful outcomes for them, is also of heightened concern in research fatigued communities. Exploring alternative epistemologies and methodologies may help, including those that allow participants to influence the research approach, analysis, and products. Not only may alternative approaches help create a less exploitative and more mutually beneficial research relationship, the sheer novelty of them may help overcome fatigue. And, as always, researchers should be prepared to hear ‘no’, to respect that answer, and should have a Plan B in case they just can’t overcome research fatigue.

Rachael and I are collaborating with some of our research participants, particularly amongst the Quandamooka community, in putting together an open access publication that will explore these issues. In that vein, we hope to present a few different perspectives on the topic of research fatigue, illuminate some of the issues for researchers to consider when seeking to engage with an over-researched group, and identify some principles and guidelines for ethical practice in this area that are grounded in the experiences of those who are subject to over-research. Stay tuned!

References

Clark, T. (2008). ‘We’re Over-Researched Here!’: Exploring Accounts of Research Fatigue within Qualitative Research Engagements. Sociology, 42(5), 953-970.

Knight, J. A., Comino, E. J., Harris, E., & Jackson-Pulver, L. (2009). Indigenous Research: A Commitment to Walking the Talk. The Gudaga Study – an Australian Case Study. Bioethical Inquiry, 6(4), 467-476. doi: 10.1007/s11673-009-9186-x

Martin, K. B. M. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(76), 203-214.

Dr Natalie Osborne,
School of Environment, Griffith University,
View Natalie’s ResearchGate profile,
n.osborne@griffith.edu.au

This blog may be cited as:
Osborne, N (2015, 2 November) Navigating ‘Research Fatigue’. AHRECS Blog. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/navigating-research-fatigue

Institutional approaches to research integrity: Tilting at blazing windmills?2

 

Not so many years ago in Australia if you entered a research office and asked what they were doing about research integrity, you would probably be pointed sagely toward a back corner and a dusty shelf. In that forgotten corner you would find the Joint NHMRC AVCC Statement (1997) and perhaps the policies on authorship, CoI and publication ethics. Rigid rules stored behind neglected glass to be broken and used only in the event of a juicy scandal. Especially if that scandal was bad enough to attract the bored attention of the media and so also that of a ministerial staffer waiting for the chance to impress her boss.

The arrival of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) brought with it the whiff of welcome change. Things were poised to get better. Even though half of the document was devoted to research misconduct and the linguistically oddly named ‘breaches of the Code” it was also replete with references to institutional responsibilities and even the previously unmentioned role of research culture.

But what happened instead was…

Large consultancy firms, form makers and HR specialists got involved. Any notion of resourcing researchers honestly discussing contributions to a piece of work and agreeing how to acknowledge contributions was replaced by a compulsory form, and internationally lauded IT systems, and by sanctions intended to slam any non-compliers into submission.

If “responsible conduct of research” means what it appears to mean and not its opposite (as those initial responses suggested), institutional approaches to research integrity must surely become about doing research well. Those of us who talk about research integrity would no longer be dismissed as someone riding in on a donkey, wooden sword in hand talking about our mission to civilize bureaucratic arrangements and give research integrity back to researchers.

The questionable Miguel de Cervantes allusion notwithstanding, there’s a serious point to be made for researchers, research managers and regulators. Investing in compliance systems, bureaucratic processes and law firms, is not a positive investment in the research culture of an institution. Instead, research integrity must be approached like any cultural change objective — it needs to practitioner focused, include practical and helpful resources and firmly reject the sanction/enforcement model.

Spending money on an off-the-shelf framework might appear to be a major demonstrable investment in responsible research at an institution, but it misses the fundamental flaw in Weberian Orthodoxy: more rules, tougher sanctions and better forms cannot possibly shift the culture of conduct of something as diverse and complex as academic research. Punishing the 99.99% of researchers to catch the 00.01% is not only unbalanced, unsustainable and toxic, there are good reasons to be confident that the malicious minority won’t be caught by a punitive framework. Instead, these very few miscreants will game and avoid the system, misrepresent, deceive and avoid, no doubt prompting a fresh round of tough institutional strategies.

Working together we all need to shift the discourse about research integrity from compliance with rules to prevent misconduct to resourcing practice and valuing positive role models.

What might a more positive approach look like:

1) Integrity advisers who have the role of providing collegiate advice on excellent practice, how best to avoid common pitfalls, and who can promote the message research integrity is primarily about research practice;

2) Resources that support reflective practice and encourage engaged discussion between collaborators;

3) A considerable focus on research training that is disciplinary and methodologically relevant, with different strategies and content to match the expertise of researchers; and

4) First and foremost distributing ownership of the institution’s research integrity arrangements so they belong to the entire research community and are the responsibility of every member of that community.

And now a new edition of the Australian Code is on the horizon. Expecting all researchers irrespective of field, discipline and area of practice to complete a dual usage form is not a promising sign. It seems it’s not yet time to retire my trusty donkey and wooden sword.

References

NHMRC/AVCC (1997) Joint NHMRC / AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/r24 (accessed 12 October 2015).

NHMRC (2007) Australian Code for the responsible conduct of research. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/r39 (accessed 12 October 2015).

Disclaimer
The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Griffith University, AHRECS, my consultancy clients or the NHMRC committees I serve on.

Gary Allen,
Office for Research,
Griffith University
Gary’s AHRECS profile
Gary’s Griffith University profile

This blog may be cited as:
Allen, G (2015, 19 October) Institutional approaches to research integrity: Tilting at blazing windmills?. AHRECS Blog. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/institutional-approaches-to-research-integrity-tilting-at-blazing-windmills

Ethics and the privacy pendulum3

 

As the development of new technologies advances at a rapid pace, the ability to access, search and link information in new and different ways also continues to grow. Current legislative and governance frameworks regarding data privacy were developed at a time when these possibilities were not foreseen and are now an inadequate fit for this brave new world. Research ethics guidelines in particular struggle to accommodate not only the new mediums of communication, such as social media, but the ways in which this type of data can be harvested (often unknowingly) and connected to formerly disparate pieces of benign or de-identified data to create incredibly detailed pictures of peoples’ lives, views and aspirations. Ethics committees also grapple with assessing the risks and benefits of research at a time when the privacy pendulum has swung from what was a common central belief within the community (and indeed a human right) of the importance of protecting privacy at all costs to a more stratified set of values that include younger generations who actively seek out public connectedness and openly share almost all aspects of their lives in the public domain. How are the views of these generations and their sense of what constitutes risk and benefit captured in the deliberations of ethics committees whose membership often (although not exclusively) is made of Gen X-ers or baby boomers?

One of the real strengths of ethics committees is the diversity of experience and opinions they bring to bear on debating and resolving the ethical challenges of research that is driving new frontiers of technology and its exploration of all that it means to be human. Ensuring multi-generational membership of ethics committees that capture these stratified values can only add to this strength. However there is also a need for researchers and committees to stay engaged with public debate to understand evolving community values regarding privacy and our information. Why? Because one thing is for certain – a pendulum never stays at the peak of its swing for long and it already appears to be on the move again. This time the driving force is not a generational change but the rapid rise of big data and the associated realisation of the tangible market value of our information. Knowledge is power, and data, and the ability to harness and explore it in all its forms, is now big business. As individuals and enterprises join the new race to protect the IP associated with their data and mitigate against the risks that can arise from its misuse, they are also demanding their fair share of the benefits that can flow from its potential exploitation. Principles of privacy, justice and consent in this new context will require new considerations by researchers and ethics committees alike.

This blog may be cited as:
Pitkin, C (2015, 6 October) Ethics and the privacy pendulum. AHRECS Blog. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/ethics-and-the-privacy-pendulum

Cathy Pitkin
Manager Social Responsibility and Ethics CSIRO

Cathy Pitkin is responsible for the management of human and animal CathyPitkinresearch ethics for CSIRO. In this role she has led the development and implementation of a human research ethics framework for the organisation and manages the ethics review and associated support process for research scientists undertaking a diverse range of social, biophysical and interdisciplinary research. She has over 10 years experience working with researchers and research managers across multiple disciplines in considering the ethical dimensions of their research and ensuring that ethics principles are embedded as a core part of research design and implementation. This experience includes research that involves emergent technologies, privacy and other related social considerations. Cathy has an in-depth knowledge of current national ethics guidelines and related legislation and broader frameworks for research ethics governance. She regularly provides training to researchers and ethics committee members and has developed a suite of resources to support good research practice.

Prior to this role she was Director of Communication, Education and Training with CSIRO’s Social and Economic Integration Emerging Science Initiative which focussed on building capacity for and greater consideration of social and economic issues in biophysical research.

Before joining CSIRO Cathy worked in a range of community development, training, project management and communications roles in the private, government and NGO sectors. She has a Masters degree in community and international development and undergraduate degrees in social science and business.

Do we need consent for the continued use of children’s biological samples and data in research – and what if the grown up children cannot be located?1

 

Parental consent is sufficient to authorize research involving infants and young children who do not have the capacity to take part in such decisions. But what happens when the children grow up and the research is ongoing?

According to the National Statement, where research is ‘complex or long-running, or participants are vulnerable’, consent ‘may need to be renegotiated or confirmed’ so that research participants are ‘given the opportunity to continue their participation or withdraw’. This suggests that at some point, researchers will need to get consent from the children themselves. The difficulty is that when children reach an age where they can consent for themselves and parental consent no longer applies, they may not know that they are involved in such research.

A study clarifying ethical responsibilities in the Australian paediatric biobanking context, reports that the responsibility to inform children when they are able to decide for themselves, belongs to no one: “Most children at 18 wouldn’t know about samples” and there is “no onus to inform people”. This state of affairs will likely cease to be a problem as new biobanks and studies get set up and better procedures are put in place. Currently though, we are left with questions about whether it is ethically acceptable for researchers to use samples and data, given with parental consent, from children who are now grown up and who cannot be located.

A U.S. study has addressed this very topic. It reports that most adults are not concerned about continued use of their samples and data collected during childhood but they want to be asked and they are generally willing to provide consent. Nevertheless there were 26% who think it is not acceptable to use their samples and data if they cannot be contacted. The authors conclude that adults have an interest in decision-making and that should be respected. Their consent for continuing research should be sought, but if they cannot be located, ‘it is generally acceptable to continue to conduct research’. The authors concede though that the scenario they use in the interviews lacked detail about things that would affect people’s attitudes – things such as risks, the type of study and identifiability.

So, how should researchers and Human Research Ethics Committees respond if the source of the sample cannot be found? Can researchers use the sample or should they throw it out?

The answer is – it depends. The National Statement reminds us that there is a need for researchers and HRECs to engage in ‘deliberation on the values and principles’, exercise their judgement, and have ‘an appreciation of context.’ What this means is that to arrive at an ethically defensible position for continuing without consent, researchers will need to explain their position, giving reasons for continued use without consent.

In order to justify using previously collected samples/data where the source cannot be located, researchers need good ethics based reasons for using this sample rather than a different sample from someone who has given consent or is willing to donate a new sample. There may be good reasons. For instance, good ethics based reasons may be to do with rare conditions and limited number of samples. Whatever the reasons, these reasons will be weighed against reasons for not using the sample without consent. Reasons in support of the need for consent after sources become adults, are autonomy based i.e. participation should be a reflection of that person’s own choices or reasons, not that of parents or researchers. A different but important reason is that proceeding without consent poses a threat to public trust and confidence in research – and the success of this type of research depends on the support of the public and their willingness to contribute. Reasons to continue without consent based simply on costs, time and inconvenience for researchers do not do the job.

References

Goldenberg, A. J., Sara, C. H., Botkin, J. R., & Wilfond, B. S. (2009). Pediatric Biobanks: Approaching Informed Consent for Continuing Research After Children Grow Up. The Journal of pediatrics, 155(4): 578-583

NHMRC (2007) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Accessed 4 September, 2015, from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72

Spriggs, M., and C. Fry. 2015. Clarifying ethical responsibilities in paediatric biobanks. AJOB Empirical Bioethics Available early online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/QDVEzAwZsTqT9QkwvBjB/full

Dr Merle Spriggs BA (Hons), M.Bioeth., PhD
ARC Research Fellow
Children’s Bioethics Centre / Centre for Health Equity,
University of Melbourne.

This blog may be cited as:
Spriggs, M (2015, 4 September) Do we need consent for the continued use of children’s biological samples and data in research – and what if the grown up children cannot be located?. AHRECS Blog. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/do-we-need-consent-for-the-continued-use-of-childrens-biological-samples-and-data-in-research-and-what-if-the-grown-up-children-cannot-be-located

Dr Merle Spriggs (mspriggs@unimelb.edu.au) is a Research Fellow at the Children’s Bioethics Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital; the Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne; and an Honorary Research Fellow at the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute. She has developed substantial educational resources about consent for Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) and researchers who conduct research involving children. Other recent research includes ethical issues and responsibilities in paediatric biobanking, e-health ethics, specifically the ethics of internet-based research and the ethical issues of electronic health records. Merle has over 20 years experience on hospital and university Human Research Ethics Committees and she has been an expert witness for two US law firms in cases involving child research. She is also a member of the Royal Children’s Hospital Clincical Ethics Committee and Clinical Ethics Response Group.

Current projects: Merle is part of a team working on an ARC Discovery Project: Involving children in social research: Balancing the risks and benefits; she is also leading a project titled: ‘Using research participants as co-researchers: Ethical considerations” funded by the University of Melbourne, Ethics and Integrigy Development Grant Scheme.

Page 11 of 12« First...89101112