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…
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.
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).
In response to community feedback, from 1 November 2020, only papers, books and genuine resources will be posted to the AHRECS Resource Library; news and announcements will be posted to the feeds page. Searches of the site can include searches of the feed. Links to Research Ethics Monthly editions will also be posted to the feeds page. Please bear with us as we move all existing news items over to the feed. Eventually, this approach will make it easier to distinguish between research outputs and news items about human research ethics and research integrity.
Close to the bottom of our revamped home page is a world map that tags the places we have been commissioned to conduct Human Research Ethics or Research Integrity work or where we have conducted philanthropic/academic/volunteer/unpaid work. Want to explore if we can do some work for you? Terrific! Drop us a line to email@example.com so we can discuss your ideas.
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
“Regulations don’t solve things. Supervision solves things” Wilbur Ross 2015 Dr Gary Allen, Prof. Colin Thomson AM and Prof Mark
We’re thrilled by how the AHRECS team has been growing and the expertise Sarah,
In this post, Gary Allen and Nik Zeps explore the human research ethics arguments and imperatives that only allow for the sharing of data, but establish a public good that can make sharing expected and essential.
This expectation should shape the approach to consent, the framing of assurances given to potential participants about confidentiality and e reflected in the application for research ethics review.
Research ethics committees and review bodies should be cognisant of these ethical arguments during the research ethics review of projects
Institutions must have clear policies and guidance material on data sharing.
In this issue, we are publishing an account of an end-of-life project in whose
Kate Young, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Profile