Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly

ISSN 2206-2483

  • Home
  • >
  • Researcher responsibilities
Ethics Honesty Responsibility Education Learning Business concept.

Effective use of research management systems

Dr Gary Allen April 28, 2022 No Comments
Read More
A diverse group of positive people

Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research?

April 28, 2021 No Comments

In this great post, Mark, Deborah and Ciara discuss a useful new element for the National Statement that relates to genuine involvement, input and participation for consumers/community members.

Mark Israel, Deborah Hersh and Ciara Shiggins

Advocates in health research of Consumer and Community Involvement – a concept better known in the United Kingdom as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) – argue that it offers a way of building knowledge that incorporates the experiences and perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including patients and members of the public. Such involvement can improve the experience for research participants, enhance the process of informed consent, aid research impact and dissemination. It might also avoid the waste of resources on findings that have little relevance to end users or that cannot be implemented…

Read More
A kneeling 3d figure looking through a magnifying glass down at a 3d question mark.

Nobody expects…

April 26, 2021 No Comments

In this post, Dr Gary Allen reflects on the establishment and conduct of constructive audits.

Dr Gary Allen

When research with current ethics approval is periodically monitored,[1] it is typically a passive process.  Institutions, often via their research ethics administration, will ask researchers to self-report on the continued ethical acceptability of a project (and compliance with any conditions of approval).  It would not be unreasonable to conclude that self-reporting is not the most effective way to identify if there have been problems with approved projects.  Indeed, if things have gone wrong, it is at least possible that the most troublesome researchers might not be entirely honest about what has happened or why.

So, what is the alternative?

Conducting random audits of a small number of active projects…

Read More
The word "Translation" highlighted by a neon coloured highlighter pen

Tongue in Cheek

March 22, 2021 No Comments

Farida Fozdar responds and reflects upon the February 2021 post by Gary Allen and Mark Israel.

Farida Fozdar

The Tower of Babel (Allen and Israel, 2021) is a compelling image when considering issues to do with translation and interpreting and the ethics of social research. Even when we speak the same language, we may not be ‘speaking the same language’, so to speak (excuse the triple metaphor). Talking past each other occurs in many ways but, in communicating the clear purpose and potential risks of one’s research, clarity is vital. Here, I outline a few issues from personal research experience, arguing that the communities themselves may be best placed to identify ethics issues and solutions to translation and interpreting dilemmas.

When working with those from a language different from that of the researchers, it may be the case that the idea of research is not well understood in the culture of origin…

Read More
Looking through a wire fence of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp

Why university research ethics committees are vital

March 13, 2021 No Comments

In this post Daniel Sokol writes about a troubling research integrity/human research ethics case that relates to Poland, the UK and Australia.

Daniel Sokol 

When I sat on the Ministry of Defence’s Research Ethics Committee, some research projects were potentially dangerous.  The risks of testing a new piece of military diving equipment, for example, are obvious.  If it malfunctions, the volunteer could drown or suffer brain damage.  The risks of historical research can be more subtle but they are nonetheless real, as shown by a recent case involving the University of Warwick.

Dr Anna Hájková, an associate professor of modern continental European history, researches the queer history of the Holocaust.  She claimed that a Jewish prisoner may have engaged in a lesbian sexual relationship with a Nazi guard in Hamburg in 1944.

After the war, the prisoner worked as an actress and emigrated from…

Read More
Two people collaborating at a table

Ethics CoPs not Ethics Police: Building communities of practice in ethics and integrity

March 10, 2021 No Comments

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…

Read More
The fall of the Babylon. Sorcerer in hood standing in front of an ancient destructed Babylon tower with flood, fire & hurricane illustration.

The Tower of Babel and Human Research Ethics

February 23, 2021 1 Comment

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
Collected data.
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…

Read More
Disabled male in a wheelchair meeting with his colleagues at a table

Heeding our stories: Getting the most from a reference group in disability research

February 22, 2021 1 Comment

Gary Allen, Carolyn Ehrlich, Michael Norwood, Delena Amsters and Maddy Slattery’s post reflecting on great engagements with disability reference groups.

Here, we aim to share insights from a group of Griffith University researchers and a consumer reference group, who worked together on a research project during the development of materials and methods, as well as in the dissemination of research outcomes. The research project we conducted aimed to explore the research experience of people with acquired disability. We wanted to understand what researchers could do better to be more inclusive of people who are often described as vulnerable or marginalised by the National Statement and subsequently Human Research Ethics Committees. We wanted to know how to best include them as participants in, rather than subjects of, research.
This is not a post advocating for the use of reference groups for research involving those with disability and chronic health conditions. Calls for respectful inclusion have already been eloquently made…

Read More
A 3d figure inspecting a standing copy of the word "RISK" through a magnifying glass

Why human research ethics and research integrity aren’t fire blankets

January 27, 2021 No Comments

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.

SYNERGY ONE

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).

Read More
Previous Page1 Page2 Page3 Page4 … Page16 Next

Categories

AHRECS Admin
17
Animal Ethics
2
Global Ethics
1
Human Research Ethics
160
Research Integrity
57
Services
27
Uncategorized
2

Featured posts

Woman isolated on white, fisheye perspective spying through a magnifying glass

Contextualising Merit and Integrity within Human Research: A Summary

August 22, 2018 No Comments

Pieper, I and Thomson, CJH (2011) Contextualising Merit and Integrity within Human Research, Monash

An Open Invitation to Research an Ethics Committee

July 10, 2015 1 Comment

Jay Marlowe and Martin Tolich have had an article published (in press) in Research

Technology research in sensitive settings: A workshop on ethical encounters in HCI

July 29, 2016 1 Comment

In May this year, a group of researchers gathered in San Jose, California, to

The words "ETHICS COMMITTEE" seen through a curled rip of paper

Going video: A chance to change review practice?

November 10, 2020 No Comments

In this post, Gary asks when it comes to research ethics review, whether something useful might come from social distancing

Subscribe to newsletter

The Research Ethics Monthly is a free monthly publication about human research ethics and research integrity. It is emailed to our subscribers generally towards the end of every month.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Related Links

  • Comment Rules
  • Complaints against the Research Ethics Monthly
  • Request a Take Down
  • Submission guidelines
  • About the Research Ethics Monthly
  • About Subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

Research Ethics Monthly

  • October/November 2020
  • August/September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May/June 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • January/February 2020
  • December 2019
  • November/December 2019
Load More

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in