Search results

This chapter centers on practices of Review Ethics Board (REBs) as they may impact academic freedom for faculty members acting as participants in research. A case example is provided, which highlights the authors’ experience applying for ethics clearance to conduct a qualitative research study. While the study was classified as minimal risk and received ethics clearance from the researchers’ host institution, additional research ethics applications were required from the higher education settings identified, before being able to recruit participants. In addition to pressing timelines, extra workload and the coordination of different requirements for each institution, not all REBs permitted faculty members the option to reveal their identity and their beliefs on pedagogical practices. This particular experience with the ethics review process elicited questions centering on research ethics committees’ practices in terms of (a) providing opportunities for faculty members, as participants in research, to freely share information about their beliefs and teaching practices as well as (b) infringing on faculty members’ autonomy and rights to intellectually express, share and take ownership of their personal beliefs and pedagogical approaches to teaching in higher education.

This paper examines beliefs and attitudes in the context of how they influence the decisions of university Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) as a preface to undertaking an empirical study in this area. It also aims at establishing a conceptual framework to guide the design of a questionnaire targeting beliefs about research ethics and the implications of these beliefs on review practices of HREC members throughout Australia.

Using content analysis of the extant body of the literature the paper examines the relationship between the concepts of beliefs and knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, and among beliefs, attitudes and behaviour in the context of research ethics.

The discussion suggests that ethics approval practices can, at times, be influenced more by personal beliefs than by contemporary review standards. It is also suggested that personal beliefs can be transmitted through the review process and that HRECs can serve to influence the transfer of values from reviewers to researchers.

The framework that this paper presents has the potential to appraise an array of perspectives which in turn would guide the design of professional development programs. In addition, an improved, more nuanced understanding of how HREC members make ethical decisions will positively impact and inform best practice in the review of ethical applications for research projects.

The paper presents a novel theoretical framework underpinning research ethics reviewer beliefs and attitudes within a contemporary context.

Over recent decades, research institutions have prescribed discrete ethics guidelines for human research with Indigenous people in Australia. Such guidelines respond to concerns about unethical and harmful processes in research, including that they entrench colonial relations and structures. This chapter sets out some of the limitations of these well-intentioned guidelines for the decolonisation of research. Namely, their underlying assumption of Indigenous vulnerability and deficit and, consequently, their function to minimise risk. It argues for a strengths-based approach to researching with and by Indigenous communities that recognises community members’ capacity to know what ethical research looks like and their ability to control research. It suggests that this approach provides genuine outcomes for their communities in ways that meet their communities’ needs. This means that communities must be partners in research who can demand reciprocation for their participation and sharing of their knowledge, time and experiences. This argument is not purely normative but supported by examples of Indigenous research models within our fields of health and criminology that are premised on self-determination.

The internet offers an opportunity for researchers to engage participants in research in a cost-effective and timely manner. Yet the use of the internet as a research tool (internet research) comes with a range of ethical concerns, and the rapidly changing online environment poses challenges for both researchers and ethics committees. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the key ethical issues of using the internet to recruit, retain and trace participants in public health research, from the perspectives of researchers and human research ethics committee (HREC) members.

This study employed a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with eight public health researchers and seven HREC members in Australia to explore the key ethical issues of using the internet to engage research participants.

The study identified commonalities between researchers and HREC members regarding the utility and ethical complexity of using the internet to recruit, retain and trace research participants. The need for guidance and support regarding internet research, for both groups, was highlighted, as well as the need for flexibility and responsiveness in formal ethical processes.

This research contributes to the understanding of how the internet is used to engage participants in public health research and the ethical context in which that occurs. Supporting the ethical conduct of internet research will benefit those involved in research, including researchers, HRECs, organisations and research participants.

This paper aims to discuss research ethics in mixed-methods research (MMR) and MMR development with a focus on ethical challenges that stem from working with technical instruments such as mobile eye-trackers.

The case of an interdisciplinary mixed-methods development study that aimed at researching the impacts of emerging mobile augmented-reality technologies on the perception of public places serves as an example to discuss research-ethical challenges regarding (1) the practical implementation of the study, (2) data processing and management and (3) societal implications of developing instruments to track and understand human practices.

This study reports challenges and experiences in ethical decision-making in the practical implementation of the study regarding the relationship to research subjects, the use of mobile research instruments in public places and the interdisciplinary cooperation among research team members. Further, this paper expounds on ethical challenges and recommendations in data processing and management and with a view to societal implications of method development and the aspirations of transdisciplinarity. This study concludes that institutionalized ethics need to become more flexible, while applied ethics and reflection must make their entry into university curricula across disciplines.

Complex interdisciplinary mobile and mixed-methods projects that involve sensors and instruments such as mobile eye-trackers are on the rise. However, there is a significant lack of engagement with practical research ethical challenges, practices and requirements in both mixed-methods and method-development literature. By taking a context- and process-oriented perspective focusing on doing ethics, the paper contributes a concrete empirical case to these underdeveloped fields.

Image-based researchers have previously noted the failure of institutional ethics guidelines and frameworks to adequately address the issues and methodologies used in visual research, citing a need for more creative and flexible approaches. Screen scholars work with traditional (non-visual) data sources, human subjects, visual data, and colleagues. This produces a range of ethical issues which are not addressed by institutional frameworks, based as they are on individualism and utilitarian ideals. Drawing on the ideas of Johann Neem and Savannah Dodd, this chapter suggests the need to shift our research practices towards a more collective, reflective, and empathetic mode of working.

This chapter explores the ethical complexities of researching location-aware social discovery Smartphone applications (apps) and how they mediate contemporary experiences of travel. We highlight the context-specific approach required to carrying out research on Tinder, a location-aware app that enables people to connect with others in close proximity to them. By journeying through the early stages of our research project, we demonstrate how ethical considerations and dilemmas began long before our project became a project. We discuss the pulls toward data extraction/mining of user-generated content (i.e., Tinder user profiles) within digital social research and the ethical challenges of using this data for research purposes. We focus particularly on issues of informed consent, privacy, and copyright, and the differences between manual and automated data mining/extraction techniques. Excerpts from our university ethics application are included to demonstrate how our research sits uneasily within standardized ethical protocols. Our moves away from a ‘big data’ approach to more ‘traditional’ and participatory methodologies are located within questions of epistemology and ontology including our commitment to practicing a feminist research ethic. Our chapter concludes with the lessons learned in the aim to push forward with research in challenging online spaces and with new data sources.

The oversight of ethical conduct of research is often placed on the university institution in partnership research. How institutions ensure the ethical conduct of research varies and for research being done with Indigenous communities, communities themselves are now conducting their own research ethics reviews. However, this chapter aims to place some onus of responsibility on the researcher themselves, to develop their own moral compass when working with Indigenous communities. (Borrowing from Toombs (2012). Ethical research for indigenous people by indigenous researchers. Aboriginal & Islander Health Worker Journal, 36(1), 24–26.) notion of the moral compass, the authors will discuss their own experiences as Indigenous researchers and how a moral compass is critical even in light of the best research ethics policies.

The authors focus on the Canadian and Australian context and provide examples from their own experiences as Indigenous people, researchers, and research ethics administrators. The focus of this chapter is to highlight some of the unethical research that has been conducted on Indigenous peoples and the policy and community response to that research. The authors explore how to build better relationships through research with Indigenous peoples.

This chapter does not aim to provide a thorough review of literature on research ethics with Indigenous peoples; however, some of this literature is cited. The focus of this chapter is to share the experiences related to policy from the perspective of two Indigenous researchers.