


What do HREC members think and do when deciding about children’s participation in social research? Results from the MESSI survey
In this guest post, Associate Professor Stephanie Taplin (UTS) reflects upon the reflections and attitudes of members of a research ethics committee when reviewing a project involving sensitive issues, where the participants are young people.
She reflects upon the degree that this consideration is based upon standards and expectations that are often not transparent to researchers and can be an impediment to useful/important research.
This post is based upon a longer research output that was about research exploring those attitudes.
This included whether there were topics that a research ethics committee member would never approve for a research project to explore with young people.
This work points to the need for specialist professional development for committee members relating to research on sensitive issues with young people.
This also raises the question of what guidance material institutions publish for researchers and for reference by research ethics reviewers.

Tongue in Cheek
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…

The Ethics and Politics of Qualitative Data Sharing
Mark Israel (AHRECS and Murdoch University) and Farida Fozdar (The University of Western Australia). There is considerable momentum behind the

Should we Reframe Research Ethics as a Professional Ethics?
Dr Nathan Emmerich Research Fellow in Bioethics at ANUMS Despite the fact that one of the urtexts of bioethics—Beauchamp and
Sage Methods Minute. January Spotlight: Research Ethics
January’s Methods Minutes, a monthly newsletter produced by Sage Publishing, is a special issue focused on social research ethics. It reviews

Self-plagiarism? When re-purposing text may be ethically justifiable
In an institutional environment where researchers may be coming under increasing pressure to publish, the temptations to take short cuts

AHRECS Human research ethics workshop in Thailand
One of our consultants (Dr Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald) recently facilitated a seminar on research ethics in the

Release of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018) – With interview
The revised National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018) was released on 9 July 2018. .
Categories
Featured posts

The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide
Pieper, I J and Thomson CJH The value of respect in human research ethics:
In a world of hijacked, clone and zombie publishing, where shouldn’t I publish?
When we talk to research higher degree candidates and early career researchers about publication

AHRECS and COVID-19
To date, we are delighted to report the extended team is virus-free. Our best
Use of Imported Human Biospecimens in Research
The use of biospecimens in research is a vital tool in the development of