Journalism and HRECs: From square pegs to squeaky wheels

This article follows on from a discussion by Richards (2010) about ethics committees and journalism researchers being ‘uneasy bedfellows’. It argues that there is scope for research using journalism as a methodology to be approved by Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs), while acknowledging tha...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kayt Davies
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Pacific Media Centre 2011-05-01
Series:Pacific Journalism Review
Online Access:https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/pacific-journalism-review/article/view/377
id doaj-75b5cab6678148e281e0d824ba4fc45d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-75b5cab6678148e281e0d824ba4fc45d2020-11-25T03:34:16ZengPacific Media CentrePacific Journalism Review1023-94992324-20352011-05-0117110.24135/pjr.v17i1.377Journalism and HRECs: From square pegs to squeaky wheelsKayt Davies This article follows on from a discussion by Richards (2010) about ethics committees and journalism researchers being ‘uneasy bedfellows’. It argues that there is scope for research using journalism as a methodology to be approved by Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs), while acknowledging that work needs to be done in familiarising journalism academics with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) and HRECs with journalism as a research methodology. The issues that arise as journalism academics and HRECs meet tend to focus on the requirement of informed consent and timing problems, but these are not insurmountable and there are clauses in Australia’s National Statement that provide scope for exemptions from these requirements. This article includes input from an interview with Professor Colin Thomson, one of the members of the NHMRC/ARC/UA working party that drafted the 2007 revision of the National Statement, clarifying the intentions of the authors with regard to Fourth Estate research, by journalists, as well as by researchers from the fields of business, law and politics. It also highlights the points of contention and common confusions that frequently arise and suggests ways that journalism academics can act collaboratively to change the current status quo. https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/pacific-journalism-review/article/view/377
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kayt Davies
spellingShingle Kayt Davies
Journalism and HRECs: From square pegs to squeaky wheels
Pacific Journalism Review
author_facet Kayt Davies
author_sort Kayt Davies
title Journalism and HRECs: From square pegs to squeaky wheels
title_short Journalism and HRECs: From square pegs to squeaky wheels
title_full Journalism and HRECs: From square pegs to squeaky wheels
title_fullStr Journalism and HRECs: From square pegs to squeaky wheels
title_full_unstemmed Journalism and HRECs: From square pegs to squeaky wheels
title_sort journalism and hrecs: from square pegs to squeaky wheels
publisher Pacific Media Centre
series Pacific Journalism Review
issn 1023-9499
2324-2035
publishDate 2011-05-01
description This article follows on from a discussion by Richards (2010) about ethics committees and journalism researchers being ‘uneasy bedfellows’. It argues that there is scope for research using journalism as a methodology to be approved by Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs), while acknowledging that work needs to be done in familiarising journalism academics with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) and HRECs with journalism as a research methodology. The issues that arise as journalism academics and HRECs meet tend to focus on the requirement of informed consent and timing problems, but these are not insurmountable and there are clauses in Australia’s National Statement that provide scope for exemptions from these requirements. This article includes input from an interview with Professor Colin Thomson, one of the members of the NHMRC/ARC/UA working party that drafted the 2007 revision of the National Statement, clarifying the intentions of the authors with regard to Fourth Estate research, by journalists, as well as by researchers from the fields of business, law and politics. It also highlights the points of contention and common confusions that frequently arise and suggests ways that journalism academics can act collaboratively to change the current status quo.
url https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/pacific-journalism-review/article/view/377
work_keys_str_mv AT kaytdavies journalismandhrecsfromsquarepegstosqueakywheels
_version_ 1724559652061970432