Overstepping the mark: ethics procedures, risky research and education researchers

Abstract

The authors reflect on the nature and experience of the process of ethics approval applied to educational research in Australia. Drawing on examples, dysfunctional aspects are identified, which impact most powerfully on particular individuals and groups. Possible explanations for the current situation are discussed, and an argument is made for a fundamental revision to a system which is unfit for the purpose.

Keywords:

• institutional review board (IRB)
• ethics approval
• risk
• doing good
• avoiding harm
• human research

Notes

1. Here we paper explore and reflect upon personal experiences of educational research interrupted or prevented by processes of ethical approval currently operative in Australian universities. The authors write from the vantage point of working in seven universities and more than two decades of first hand, in‐depth experience of educational research in Australia and this experience is the basis for the strength of the claims we make. Confidentiality and a commitment to ethical practice compel us to not ‘name names’ nor identify all our sources but we write, nonetheless, from a position of integrity.

2. The Dawkins reforms were named after the Federal Minister for Education, John Dawkins, who introduced them in the late 1980s. Under these reforms sub‐university institutions that offered programmes of tertiary education, including teachers’ colleges, were either upgraded to university status or amalgamated with existing universities. Similar reforms in the UK saw polytechnics become universities in 1992.

3. Piper, H., I. Stronach, and M. MacLure. 2006. Touchlines: The problematics of touching between children and professionals. ESRC funded project RES‐000‐22‐0815.

4. Feedback from the relevant state department of education was that the resulting report was one of the most useful they had received and findings of the research have been included in professional development training for aspiring principals.

5. The committee concerned justified its stance by reference to state privacy legislation. However, consultations with the relevant government authority revealed that the legislation did not apply in the circumstances and should not have been cited to support the committee’s decision.

6. This in itself is an illustrative example of how demands for compliance and conditions for approval are continually ramped up, even within the life of a single project.