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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
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 |