Why Did You Not Act on Our Suggestion? Regulatory and Growth-Oriented Opportunities During Ethical Review: A Case Study
Author(s) -
Sean Dicks,
Ian J. Pieper,
Holly Northam,
Frank van Haren,
Douglas P. Boer
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
sage open
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.357
H-Index - 32
ISSN - 2158-2440
DOI - 10.1177/2158244020920587
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , human research , engineering ethics , ethical issues , research ethics , plan (archaeology) , psychology , mindfulness , psychotherapist , history , paleontology , archaeology , engineering , biology
In Australia, before conducting research with human participants, researchers must have their research plan reviewed by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) to ensure that proposed methods meet ethical requirements and protect the welfare of participants. In addition, it has been proposed that HRECs can contribute to a novice researcher’s ethical mindfulness. To explore this suggestion, the current self-reflective case study examines the dialogue between a PhD candidate and the HREC that reviewed his proposed study of family bereavement in the context of the potential for organ donation. Findings suggest that when a respectful, problem-solving attitude is adopted by both parties, a learning environment evolves where diverse views, differences of opinion, and novel solutions are tolerated. In this context, the research plan is improved and the novice researcher’s ability to apply research ethics is developed. Simultaneously, members of the HREC gain practice in the identification of ethical dilemmas and the application of ethical principles that help resolve those dilemmas.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom