Academic psychologists' perspectives on the human research ethics review process

Abstract

Academic staff members at 18 randomly selected Australian schools of psychology responded to evaluation questions about the human research ethics review process at their university. Most of the 86 respondents rated the process at their university as working well and gave positive ratings for the clarity and reasonableness of ethics decisions and for the informal guidance provided by the ethics review committee. Ratings were lower for timeliness and predictability of decisions, and for the openness of the committee to suggestions. Written comments by respondents suggested 14 matters of concern, such as that the ethics committee uses guidelines inappropriate for psychological research, goes beyond its expertise, prevents harmless research, makes arbitrary decisions, is not accountable to researchers, and refuses to allow payment of participants. Respondents at seven universities mentioned that they had fast-track, in-school review for low-risk research. Respondents at these universities gave significantly higher total ratings of the review process.