ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Training

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Making Indigenous research ethics a compulsory facet of supervisor development and student training1

 

There is an increasing trend in Australian universities to provide professional development for supervisors of higher degree research (HDR) students (Whisker & Kiley, 2014). Concurrently there is also a move toward more structured research development programs for HDR candidates (McGagh et.al., 2016). Education in Indigenous research ethics for both these groups is essential if we are to ensure that research with Indigenous Australian peoples and communities is ethical. Particularly in relation to nonmaleficence and beneficence; key aspects underlined by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the National Health & Medical Research Council guidelines on Indigenous research. Although it is difficult to quantify, given the lack of an explicit research codes for much Indigenous research, even a cursory look at outcomes of major competitive grants schemes suggests that there is considerable research being undertaken in Indigenous communities by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers. Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) procedures provide both guidance to researchers and a buffer to communities through the mechanism of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘appendix’ which ensures that researchers address the key issues of harm, consent and benefit. However, the HRECs should not have sole responsibility in this area.

This is not to say that HRECs do not have a role in this area, but we suggest that HREC responsibility needs to be part an integrated educative framework of Indigenous research development for both HDR students, their supervisors and indeed any researcher undertaking Indigenous research (Trudgett, 2011, Trudgett et.al., 2016). We suggest that Graduate Research Schools and those responsible for education and ongoing development of supervisors and HDR students need to prioritise this area of research education. In our experience, this work is too often ad hoc and left to Indigenous academics who are, in some cases, called on to provide expert advice without appropriate recognition in terms of being a formal part of supervision teams or being part of their usual academic roles. While there continues to be significant under-representation of Indigenous academics working in Australian universities (Behrendt, et.al., 2012), the need for this advisory work can be frustrating for supervisors seeking advice from a limited pool and even more so, for Indigenous academics who are already burdened by considerable unrecognised work (Page & Asmar, 2008).

On a more positive note there are increasing numbers of more senior Indigenous academics who can contribute to this area of universities work. At our own institution, our team from the Centre for the Advancement of Indigenous Knowledges, regularly provide education for HDR students and their supervisors as part of the UTS Graduate Research School’s structured researcher development program. In the context of the ACOLA Review and the recent Universities Australian draft Indigenous Strategy (Universities Australia, 2016) which indicates that universities should take steps to increase the numbers of Indigenous HDR students, the need for improved capacity in Indigenous research and ethics is clear. It is imperative that Graduate Research Schools and those responsible for research training take steps to actively address this issue. To conclude, universities need to dedicate appropriate resources to the development of supervisors responsible for overseeing the candidature of Indigenous and non-Indigenous postgraduate students undertaking Indigenous research and avoid delegating such responsibility to their existing Indigenous staff without additional resources and acknowledgement.

References

Behrendt, L., Larkin, S., Griew, R., & Kelly, P. (2012). Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Final Report. Canberra: Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

McGagh, J, Marsh, H, Western, M, Thomas, P, Hastings, A, Mihailova, M, Wenham, M (2016) Review of Australia’s Research Training System. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies, www.acola.org.au.

Page, S. & Asmar, C. (2008) ‘Beneath the teaching iceberg: Exposing the hidden support dimensions of Indigenous academic work.’ Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, Vol 37S, pp. 109-117.

Trudgett, M. (2011). Western places, academic spaces and Indigenous faces: supervising Indigenous Australian postgraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 389-399.

Trudgett, M., Page, S., & Harrison, N. (2016). Brilliant Minds: A Snapshot of Successful Indigenous Australian Doctoral Students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 45(1), 70-79.

Universities Australia. (2016). Indigenous Strategy 2017 – 20120, Draft for consultation, November, 2016, circulated to universities, 17/11/16.

Wisker, G., & Kiley, M. (2014). Professional learning: lessons for supervision from doctoral examining. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(2), 125-138.

Contributors
Susan Page – Susan.page@uts.edu.au | CAIK profile
Michelle Trudgett – Michelle.trudgett@uts.edu.au | CAIK profile

Centre for the Advancement of Indigenous Knowledges, University of Technology Sydney. http://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/centre-advancement-indigenous-knowledges

This post may be cited as:
Page S andTrudgett M. (2016, 25 November) Making Indigenous research ethics a compulsory facet of supervisor development and student training. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/making-indigenous-research-ethics-compulsory-facet-supervisor-development-student-training

Comparing research integrity responses in Australia and The Netherlands3

 

Last year, I was invited by Tracey Bretag to contribute a chapter to the Handbook of Academic Integrity. The invite was a little unusual – find another author and work with him or her to compare how research integrity has been dealt with in your two jurisdictions. It could have gone horribly wrong. It didn’t, for two reasons. First, I was delighted to be partnered with Pieter Drenth whose career happens to include a period as Vice-Chancellor of VU University Amsterdam, and President of both the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and the ALLEA (All European Academies). Secondly, the exercise of comparing research integrity strategies in Australia and The Netherlands actually proved to be highly productive, helped me understand some of the strengths and weaknesses of the Australian response, and was a timely reminder of the value of assessing critically what might be happening in research integrity beyond the borders of our own countries.

The chapter has just been published (Israel and Drenth, 2016). In it, we argue…

In Australia and the Netherlands, research institutions and their funders, as well as academics, state integrity agencies, judges, governments, and journalists, have contributed to the development of rules and procedures that might help prevent, investigate, and respond to research fraud and misconduct. Both countries have experienced scandals and have ended up with codes, investigatory committees, and national research integrity committees.

National policy has created a series of expectations for research institutions. However, in both countries, the primary responsibility for research integrity remains with the institutions under whose auspices the research is carried out, as well as with the researchers themselves. Research institutions have to decide how to respond to misconduct, albeit in ways that are open to scrutiny by national advisory committees, the media, courts, and state accountability mechanisms. As a result, many institutions have amended and sharpened their own codes and regulations; refined their mechanisms for advising staff, reporting and investigating suspected misconduct, and responding to findings of misconduct; improved their protection rules for whistleblowers; regulated data storing and archiving; and sought to foster greater transparency in both their research and research integrity procedures. However, while researchers have been encouraged to embed awareness and acknowledgment of these principles through teaching, supervision, and mentoring of students and junior staff, less effort has been placed on resourcing good practice, tracing and understanding the causes of misconduct, and on fostering and entrenching a research culture invested with the values of professional responsibility and integrity.

Other chapters in the research integrity part of the Handbook compare combinations of Austria, Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China and Korea, and there are plenty of other contributors to the volume from Australia, including Brian Martin (with one chapter on plagiarism and another on the relationship between integrity and fraud – a topical issue, given the recent sentencing of Bruce Murdoch) and David Vaux (scientific misconduct).

Reference
Israel, M & Drenth, PJD (2016) Research Integrity in Australia and the Netherlands. In Bretag, T (ed.) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer. ISBN 978-981-287-097-1 http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789812870971

Contributor
Mark Israel is professor of law and criminology at The University of Western Australia.
Click here for Mark’s AHRECS bio
Click here for Mark’s UWA page

This post may be cited as: Israel M. (2016, 17 May) Comparing research integrity responses in Australia and The Netherlands. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from:
https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/comparing-research-integrity-responses-australia-netherlands

We would all benefit from more research integrity research1

 

Paul M Taylor1 and Daniel P Barr2

1Director, Research Integrity, Governance and Systems
Research and Innovation, RMIT University (paul.taylor@rmit.edu.au)

2Acting Director, Office for Research Ethics and Integrity
Research, Innovation and Commercialisation, The University of Melbourne (dpbarr@unimelb.edu.au)

We need more research into research integrity, research misconduct and peer review. This is not a controversial statement, and few would argue against it. So, this is a short blog post then…

It’s worth thinking about why we think that more research into these areas is important and needed. The research that has been reported in the literature is valuable to us and has produced some fascinating insights. We see differences in attitudes in different countries and career stages, and evidence about the impacts of research misconduct. Like all good research, the material already in the literature prompts us to ask more questions than it answers.

But, do we think that the same surveys about the incidence of research misconduct or attitudes to research integrity would reveal the same results for humanities and social science researchers as those in STEM disciplines? Are biomedical researchers in Australia or the UK as likely or more likely to commit research misconduct? Do RCR training packages help prevent misconduct? Is this even what we want RCR training to do? How do we best design and implement research integrity policies? Are principles really better than rules in this context? There’s a handful of grant applications right there!

Perhaps a research integrity ecosystem view would help. What are the challenges that some of the key stakeholders in research integrity are facing and how could research help?

We can start close to home by thinking about the role of institutions in research integrity. The most obvious role of institutions in this area is in responding to allegations of research misconduct. This role is entirely reasonable because of the nature of the relationship between researchers and their workplaces – employment contracts can compel people to provide evidence, and institutions may have better access to data and records that can make the difference in allegations being properly resolved. Certainly compared to other players, institutions are in the best position to consider concerns about the integrity of research. We know that there is not uniformity though in the way institutions respond. Our friends at COPE have talked about the difficulty that publishers face in sometimes even identifying a place to direct concerns. What’s the opportunity for research here? Analysis of institutions to identify traits that are found in ‘good responders’ would help those institutions trying to improve their operations in this area. How critical is the role of senior leadership? What are the impacts, at an institutional level, of a high profile or public misconduct case? How does this impact differ for highly-ranked, ‘too big to fall’ institutions compared with younger organisations? What are the factors that people see that makes them think an institution produces responsible and trustworthy research (if the institution plays that much of a role at all)?

This leads to a second and equally important role for institutions in promoting the importance of responsible and ethical research. It extends way beyond compliance (although this is obviously important). The products of research, as many and varied as they are, must be trustworthy because of the positive impacts that we all hope research will have. So, if an institution decided it wanted to revamp its research governance framework or Code of Conduct for Research, what should it focus on? What evidence do we have, in the research context, to support the idea of Codes of Conduct? Are high-level, principles-based documents that cover most research disciplines useful or are more discipline-focussed rules-based governance structures more effective? How do institutions best engender a strong culture of research integrity?

The role of training here is intuitive and probably right, but can we show that this makes a difference and results in more trustworthy, higher quality research, or does it just make us feel better? Publishers and funders too could benefit from the added insights that research would reveal. Perhaps for both of these players, understanding better the pitfalls of peer review, or development of rigorous alternative models? Research into peer review is already happening, but there could and should be more. What is the best way to distribute mostly decreasing pools of funds to highly competitive funding applicants? How consistent is the decision-making of grant review panels or journal editors? How influential are locations or institutions and ‘big names’ on manuscript or grant review processes and should all reviews be double-blind? Decisions based on peer review are intrinsic and integral to the research process. We should thoroughly understand how these processes are working and what we should do to try and make them work better.

The final group to talk about here are the researchers themselves, perhaps the most important part of the research integrity ecosystem. Given an opportunity, most researchers enjoy talking about the way research works and their own research practice. Listening to conversations between microbiologists and historians about publication rates and funding challenges, data generation and curation, and team research or sole-trader models is intriguing and very interesting. Research about attitudes towards research integrity and how it fits (or doesn’t fit) the way researchers do their research would be valuable. Fundamentally, researchers critically assess new or existing information to find new ideas or solutions. It should come as no surprise when the same critical assessment is applied to proposals for them to reconsider the way they do their research. ‘Research integrity research’ would help to support changes in behaviour that increase the trustworthiness and quality of research. This is really the goal of research integrity.

There’s no shortage of questions to answer. There’s growing awareness of research integrity as a discipline in it’s own right (perhaps it the ultimate interdisciplinary research area). There’s new places for this research to be found (like Research Integrity and Peer Review). The benefits are compelling and clear. What are we waiting for? *Paul is a member of the Editorial Board of Research Integrity and Peer Review. Aside from that, neither Paul nor Dan have any conflicts of interest to disclose, but they hope to in the near future.

This blog may be cited as:
Taylor P and Barr DP. (2016, 10 May) We would all benefit from more research integrity research. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/benefit-research-integrity-research

A Note on the Importance of Sensitising the Novice Researcher to the Realities of Ethics in Practice0

 

Discussions of research ethics have begun to centre increasingly on how research guidelines translate into ethical practice during the research process. In the paper which prompted the invitation to contribute to this blog (McEvoy, Enright & MacPhail, 2015), my experiences as a novice researcher conducting focus group interviews with a group of young people are illustrated and discussed. The consequence of a limited experiential base in research and not having previously read deeply on the topic of research ethics was that I encountered difficulties in recognising or determining the best course of action when faced with what Guillemin and Gillam (2004, p. 263) refer to as ‘ethically important moments’ in the research situation.

It is clear that unless researchers are sensitised to how research practices such as confidentiality, informed consent, etc. manifest in research encounters, on-the-spot decisions can test the veracity of a research project’s ethical promises. I am certainly not suggesting that experienced researchers hold the monopoly on research ethics, or that it is not possible for novice researchers to behave ethically. Rather, due to the immediacy of ethically important moments it is often a researcher’s instincts or reflexes which are operative. Therefore, just as when we learn any skill and certain elements become automatic with experience, it is important that researchers starting out on their careers are given every opportunity to develop and challenge their ethical practice in a way that ensures that those elements of their practice which become ingrained have the best chance of being ethically sound.

In reflecting upon the ethically important moments I encountered, and in reading the associated literature, I certainly improved my ethical sensitivity and understanding of how ethics are enacted in practice. However, from the perspective of the research participants in the given project, it was far from ideal that my learning was the product of ethical difficulties in the field. So how might novice researchers hone their skills and reflexes without exposing research participants to the possibility of ethical breaches borne of inexperience? We may certainly begin by providing research students with a wealth of examples of ethical dilemmas, discussing our research encounters with them, what we did or didn’t do, said or didn’t say, and prompting them to question what they would do or say in the given situation. Further, we can ensure that we educate novice researchers regarding the deeper thinking behind the principles of research ethics and the various ethical stances that abound (e.g. virtue ethics, relational ethics, feminist ethics, situational ethics, etc.) so that when faced with a less clear-cut ethical dilemma they will have the resources to adapt to the context by upholding the spirit of a given principle. The immediacy of the research situation requires instant decisions but that same immediacy results in the likelihood that such decisions are in fact the result of that which comes before the research situation itself. It is perhaps in the preparation that ethics is won or lost.

References:

Guillemin, M., and Gillam, L., (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 261.

McEvoy, E., Enright, E., & MacPhail, A. (2015). Negotiating ‘ethically important moments’ in research with young people: Reflections of a novice researcher, Leisure Studies, doi: 10.1080/02614367.2015.1119877

Eileen Mcevoy
PhD student at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland and also works as a research co-ordinator in Ireland. She has co-ordinated research projects at the Physical Education, Physical Activity and Youth Sport (PEPAYS Ireland) Research Centre, as well as various other Irish educational institutions.
epmcevoy@gmail.com

This blog may be cited as:
Mcevoy, E. (2016, 22 April) A Note on the Importance of Sensitising the Novice Researcher to the Realities of Ethics in Practice. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/note-importance-sensitising-novice-researcher-realities-ethics-practice

0