The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ethics devil is in the detail > Comments

Ethics devil is in the detail : Comments

By Andrew Baker, published 17/5/2010

Academics can do their research more effectively if universities revert to a much simpler ethics approval process.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All
The pity about the process is that unless universities recognise their processes are complex and ridiculous, they will become irrelevant for students who see universities as way of gaining employment.

Take a functional activity such as journalism, and snotty academics look down their noses at the mere suggestion that journalists do research. But if a journalism student seeks to interview someone, then some ethics committee are now demanding they must seek ethics approval.

A requirement of the so-called ethics process is that the interviewee has the right to withdraw at any time and must be given the opportunity to review their comments.

So an interview with, say, a cabinet minister who admits he/she wants to cut Asian migration must be given a second chance to rework the words he/she initially used. In other words the ethics committees will allow interviewees to sanitise their words and be given a second chance. And if not, the comments could not be published.

Is this ethical? The ethics committees would have us believe so, even though this is clearly dishonest, deceitful and certainly not in the public interest.

Already, many editors regard journalism courses at universities as irrelevant and inadequate. Some media organisations are recruiting from high schools, and training the journalists themselves.

It's a trend that will grow, thanks, in part, to unrealistic and silly 'ethics' committees
Posted by Paul R, Monday, 17 May 2010 10:25:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had the privilege (and fun!) of serving on a university Human Research Ethics Committee for two years, finishing about two years ago. I imagine the animal ethics committees are much the same.
All projects were social or psychological as that university did no medical research but our process had to conform to the NH&MRC guidelines for medical research, which originated as a response to the medical experimentation of the Nazi regime in Germany.
While this seemed excessive, we did try to apply the principles of Merit, Integrity, Justice, Beneficence and Respect as carefully as we could. Our task usually became one of making sure that the researcher had covered all unintended consequences of doing the research. We rejected very few projects, sent quite a few back for minor adjustments, and gave advice to lots of researchers on ways to improve their projects, advice they could accept or reject.
We felt that a sensible researcher would use the ethics process as a form of peer review or quality control and so profit from the additional rigour.
We also felt that University Research, as a brand, needs some kind of internal quality monitoring.
Another advantage of the ethics process is that, if anything does go wrong, the university will (or should) defend the researchers, rather than leaving them out to dry.
On the other hand, there was little or no monitoring of how closely the approved methodology was followed, beyond a standard type of complaint process, so, in the end it generally does come down to trusting the researchers.
Posted by Jolyon Sykes, Monday, 17 May 2010 11:02:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ethics without absolutes equals climategate.
Posted by runner, Monday, 17 May 2010 11:25:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Paul R.
The way our posts appeared, it looked as though I was responding to you, which I wasn't.
I think it's really weird for an ethics committee to concern itself with student journalists' assignments as in the scenario you describe. If there was a proposal to investigate the effects of media coverage at a post-grad level, then okay (maybe), but not the journalism assignments themselves. Surely the subject or course convenor would be the person responsible.
As you say, the effect of a hard-line interpretation of these ethics guidelines can jeopardize or reduce the merit and integrity of the project. Surely that helps no-one.
Yours,
Jolyon
Posted by Jolyon Sykes, Monday, 17 May 2010 4:32:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ethical guidelines have been an excellent addition to the research process and a good ethics committee can make the ethics process relatively painless and sometimes even helpful. But when any process becomes an end in itself, it loses value. I have three pet hates (at least) from over a decade of running a small research centre on rural health. 1) The practice of requiring student work to have formal ethics clearance when the main purpose is to get students to interact with people and, secondarily, gain research skills. There should be trust (and a paper trail) in the supervising academic to ensure that students understand and follow ethical practice. The time lines for undergraduate student work are too short for anything more complex and the result is that students loose the opportunity for valuable experience. 2) The time consuming processes for very straightforward research such as use of de-identified data. Every time I am told that a simplified form has been developed it turns out to be one simple form added to an already complicated form. Enough is enough. 3) The blind trust on the part of some journals that ethics committees and ethics committees alone are the arbitrators of ethics in research. Editors and reviewers can ask if a research project had ethics but having obtained ethics should in no way satisfy someone who has concerns about a particular project or procedure. There is no substitute for the researcher justifying (and documenting) her own actions.
Posted by Ann Larson, Tuesday, 18 May 2010 9:58:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy