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

You must be this ethical…

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on March 18, 2022
0 Comments
Keywords Ethical review,Good practice,Training
A graphic with the words, "YOU MUST BE At Least 6 FEET TALL To Ride this Ride" with the words "6 FEET TALL" struck out and replaced with the word, "ETHICAL".

By Gary Allen

Many of us will recall the unease of approaching a fun ride and being measured to judge if we were tall enough to get onto the ride.  If we don’t remember ourselves, we may remember our child/grandchild/family member being tested for height.

Such a measure is a quick assessment to judge whether an individual will be safe on the ride or is old enough to deal with the psychological challenges.

However, this is not a critique of using height to judge capacity or the limitations of one-size-fits-all safety equipment and risk mitigation strategies. This is a reflection on whether we need something similar for our human research ethics arrangements.

Hopefully, we are all using proportional review arrangements for our ethics review of new projects, variations, ethical conduct reports and responses to review feedback. If you are not, you should be.

We have written about the value of creating and operating proportional research ethics review arrangements and supporting arrangements (the processing of variation requests and the consideration of ethical conduct reports) (Allen and Israel, 2017).

How we interpret the words ‘proportional review’

Proportional processes can sometimes be the answer to a few (apparently competing) problems

Smarter proportional research ethics review

The question here is whether we should allow all researchers to access these special arrangements, or if we should be excluding some people.  Such an approach would create an incentive to ‘play by the rules’ and create a consequence for not doing the right thing.

While such arrangements are likely to be contentious, and may lead to a small increase in HREC workload, there is merit in excluding some people from access to proportional review arrangements.

Such exclusions might include individuals who have:

  1. been found to have committed a serious ethical breach.
  2. failed, despite numerous reminders, to provide a response to review feedback or an ethical conduct report.
  3. not participated in institutional professional development (where available) relating to human research ethics in the last 12 months.

Such an approach would create a ‘real world’ consequence for a researcher failing to do the right thing.  However, we see this as an assessment of the risk associated with the researcher having work fast-tracked and not as punishment for non-compliance.

Of course, to be able to establish such an arrangement we will need to ensure that we have in place:

  1. A policy setting in our misconduct procedures that a person found to have committed a serious breach will be excluded from access to the proportional arrangements.
  2. A tracking system to identify if a person is currently excluded and the operative dates of that exclusion.
  3. Proportional review arrangements that use different forms, review processes and timeframes for work that is deemed low risk and low ethical sensitivity.
  4. An automated reminder system that flags if an individual has failed to respond to a request, reveals how long has passed and escalates matters in terms of the consequences of them failing to respond.
  5. Regular professional development opportunities and a system that tracks those who have attended a session and combines this with attendance details from other offerings.
  6. Review processes to recognise appropriate corrective action that allow for rescission of the exclusion.

As a consultancy team, we tend to urge institutions away from a focus on compliance and enforcement, instead highlighting the value of a focus on resourcing reflective practice. Nevertheless, in this case, we believe the possible withholding of access to proportional review arrangements can be a useful way to encourage researchers to adhere to an institution’s policies, procedures and arrangements.

Reference

Allen, G and Israel, M (2017) Moving beyond Regulatory Compliance: Building Institutional Support for Ethical Reflection in Research. In Iphofen, R and Tolich, M (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: Sage.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G.  (18 March 2022) You must be this ethical…. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/you-must-be-this-ethical/

Related reading

Expertise in ethics, research ethics or review?

Internal Human Research Ethics annual reporting

Nobody expects…

If you build it, they will come- 2020 Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) Training Conference (online) 18-20 Nov

Updated checklist for HDR Supervisors

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?

How we interpret the words ‘proportional review’

Proportional processes can sometimes be the answer to a few (apparently competing) problems

Is it something I said (or the way I said it)?

Institutional approaches to evaluative practice

Conducting research with (not on) consumers in health – exploring ethical considerations

REAlising a collegiate Research Ethics Adviser network

Release of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018) – With interview

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Dr Gary Allen

Sp-user Link
Gary has been working in the university human research ethics and research integrity sector since 1997. He is the General Manager and a senior consultant at AHRECS
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

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