In this post Gary discusses the components of a good internal report from a research ethics committee to the governing body of the host institution.
Such reports should be produced annually.
A constructive report should provide a snapshot of the committee during the reported period.
The report should cover specific matters that are optional and strategic in nature.
In this post find out why Gary is cranky about the proposed good practice guide for Australian Research Integrity Advisers.
#SPOILERALERT It is because he believes institutions need a network of collegiate Research Integrity Advisers to nurture and support a community of practice within their institution.
He also thinks mandatory reporting and telling people to speak in hypotheticals are STUPID.
While Gary describes this as a personal opinion, we agree. We don’t see how mandatory reporting will make serving as an RIA would be appealing or encourage anyone to consult them about whether an individual’s practice is appropriate.
AHRECS provides desktop audit and blueprint on Research Integrity within an institution and conducts professional development for RIAs.
Contact firstname.lastname@example.org to discuss.
Farida Fozdar responds and reflects upon the February 2021 post by Gary Allen and Mark Israel.
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…
In this post, Gary, Mark and Kim refect on the draft update to Section 5 of the Australia’s National Statement.
“In recent years in Australia, we have seen some painful cases where research ethics review delegated to a non-HREC review body has failed to guard against projects that proved to be embarrassing for their host institution (see, for example, the ‘Racist bus driver’ and ‘Laughing at the disabled’ projects)….”
The publication of the Hong Kong Principles comes at a time when there has never been more scrutiny of research. In this pandemic, the importance of science has been reinforced time and time again, but the importance of efforts to enhance reproducibility and transparency in research has also come to the fore. What the Hong Kong Principles do is provide a framework whereby research practices that strengthen integrity in research – a core component of reproducibility and trustworthiness – can be recognised, supported and rewarded.
Worried your researchers might not be treating human research ethics as a core component of good research practice? Concerned they are not seeing it as their responsibility?
All of us might be part of the problem. Dr Gary Allen AHRECS Senior Consultant Consider a hypothetical problem: You
Nik Zeps AHRECS Consultant Health services are often operated by people who strive to improve the way they deliver care.
Mark Israel Mark Israel’s article in Research Ethics Monthly on ‘Self-plagiarism?’ has been receiving a little
Kate Young, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Profile
January’s Methods Minutes, a monthly newsletter produced by Sage Publishing, is a special issue
The significance of how we talk and think about the pachyderm elephant mammoth in