Contextualising Creative Practice Within Human Research Ethics Processes

Abstract

Australian creative practice researchers are not alone in their quest for an appropriate framework for human ethics research committee consent. Globally, there seem to be similar tensions. Although Australia's National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research was revamped in 2007 to be more inclusive of specific creative practice research, including long-form journalism and other creative non-fiction writing, many tertiary Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) have not evolved with it. Instead, a conservative stasis pertaining to the previous medical/scientific paradigm remains the default position. This paper details a submission to an Australian university's HREC calling for a human ethics application process that more appropriately contextualises creative practice human research. Additionally, it proposes an informed consent letter that addresses tensions around the withdrawal of “data” based on the journalistic practice of “on the record/off the record”. The revised Australian National Statement has given creative practice-led academics the ability to improve the ethical clearance process—the mechanisms are there within the National Statement. By highlighting the counter-productive restraints and constraints some conservative HRECs still place on the functioning of journalistic and other creative non-fiction writing research within universities, this paper calls for a uniform and national collaboration to investigate review other than by HREC as a matter of urgency for all Australian journalism and creative practice researchers, based on the more intuitive and streamlined content model already utilised at a UK university.

KEYWORDS:

• creative research
• ethics approval
• Human Research Ethics Committees
• informed consent
• journalism
• National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
• non-fiction writing
• non-traditional research

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Professor Richard Keeble from the University of Lincoln for his time and generosity in walking me through the ethics procedure at Lincoln and taking part in an interview with me. I am also grateful to him for allowing the reproduction and appending in this paper of the EA2 forms implemented at Lincoln. I received full consent and permission from the UTS HREC to record the submission I made. I also informed the committee I was writing a paper on the pertinent issues affecting journalism and ethics clearance, particularly the consent letter and withdrawal of data.

Notes

1. Tabled in federal parliament on 28 March 2007 (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research); replaced the 1999 National Statement.

2. See http://www.wma.net/en/20activities/10ethics/10helsinki/.

3. See http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html.

4. Since this paper was written, UTS undertook a pilot online ethics application system. As of February 21, 2013, ethics applications are only accepted online. The system still results in applications averaging 20 pages, and still a signed hard copy must be submitted. It is an improvement from the 16 hard copies (of 25 pages or more) from the past; and it now contains a risk evaluation question in the early stages. Answering questions on the type of research undertaken, the system decides if the application is more than nil/negligible risk, necessitating a full application or not.

5. See http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html.

6. Submission made to UTS HREC on March 14, 2012.

7. The Hutton Inquiry, judicial inquiry convened in August 2003 to investigate circumstances around the death of biological warfare expert and UN weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kelly. Kelly was used as a source by BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan; later outed by the Ministry of Defence. Report was tabled on January 2004.

8. Ernest K. Lindley was a Newsweek columnist throughout the 1950s who was the first to write of a “deep background” convention. His definition became known as the Lindley Rule.